Talk:2009 Afghan presidential election

Two unwarranted reversions for "copyright violations"

Joshdboz, you've now twice reverted a series of good faith edits. After your first revert, I went to the trouble to modify the text to try to suit you, but your repeated actions - completely censoring content instead of starting a discussion or fixing the perceived problem - indicates POV vandalism.

Instead of your destructive edit warring reversions to eliminate entire sections, why not constructively discuss here exactly what passages you think are at fault for "copyright violation"? 76.69.228.174 (talk) 04:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I've further modified the text to try to suit you yet again. Please do not revert a third time, but use this page to constructively discuss exactly which passages you think are so problematic. Because you twice censored out all the new content, choosing to engage in disruptive edit-warring instead of discussing or just fixing the perceived problem, I suspect you are engaging in POV vandalism under the guise of "copyright violation". If necessary after constructive discussion here, we can request administrator input on whether there really is "copyright violation", but in the meantime do not disruptively revert the good-faith edits a third time. 76.69.228.174 (talk) 05:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary! I'm delighted that you are inclined to contribute, but that does not permit plagiarism - which when a copyright violation is both against Wikipedia policy and illegal (hence the need to revert, regardless of the quality of the information). For example, you write

On August 15, 2009, five days before the election, a suicide car bomb struck NATO's headquarters inside Kabul's most fortified district. Seven people were killed and 91 wounded, including several foreign soldiers, by the attack at the complex known as "HQ ISAF" inside the heart of a network of fortified embassies and government buidings around the presidential palace in Kabul's equivalent of Baghdad's Green Zone. A Taliban spokesperson confirmed that the attackers had been targeting the NATO military headquarters and the nearby U.S. embassy, located less than 150 meters away, as part of a campaign to disrupt the elections.

Now these paragraphs from the Guardian:

'Seven people were killed and almost 100 wounded, including several international soldiers, when the bomber detonated his explosives on the doorstep of Kabul's international military headquarters...The complex where the attack took place, known as HQ ISAF, is in the heart of Kabul's answer to Baghdad's green zone, a network of fortified embassies and government offices close to the presidential palace...A Taliban spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, confirmed the attackers had been targeting the Nato headquarters and the nearby US embassy as part of a campaign to disrupt the elections and said the attack follows orders from the Taliban leadership for Afghans to boycott the polls.

Paraphrasing takes place all the time on Wikipedia, but the similarities here are nothing short of plagiarism. Joshdboz (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It has to be pointed that you actually left out 7 whole intervening paragraphs in your attempt to make the above example seem more egregious than it is. 76.65.180.97 (talk)

I've reworded the paragraph yet a third time for you. Wikipedia requires all its information to be strictly verifiable and cited by sources so paraphrasing is unavoidable. Meanwhile straying from what the cited sources state falls under original research which is strictly prohibited (WP:NOR) and there are only so many ways to include all of the relevant facts about a particular incident inside three lines, so similarities are to be expected. It is also important to keep in mind that limited paraphrasing of one or two sentences is permitted under fair use. A discussion about copyright paranoia can be read here. If there is anything else, please discuss it here instead of resorting to indiscriminate reverting. 76.65.180.97 (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate if you wish to fix the problem, but you clearly do not understand the difference between successful paraphrasing and plagiarism. It does not just mean changing a few words. Please read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If a sentence is being used as fair use, it must be placed in quotation marks. Joshdboz (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of misunderstanding, your statement about fair use requiring quotation marks is shown to be blatantly false by the very link you brought up. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing indicates that:

"Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article"

And again:

"limited close paraphrasing may be acceptable under fair use in some cases."

"It is also permitted when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing."

To spell it out for you, closely paraphrased sentences are permitted under fair use, while paraphrased sentences should obviously never be placed within quotation marks. A closely paraphrased sentence permissible under fair use should never be placed within quotation marks.

If you insist on continuing to spend everyone's time quibbling over this, we can seek third-party dispute resolution, and consume yet another person's time, but I would rather be productively adding useful new content to Wikipedia. 76.65.180.97 (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An exact, unchanged phrase, as was sometimes the case in your writing, must be in quotation marks. I am just asking that you write instead of copying and making superficial changes. Thank you for improving it. Joshdboz (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad we worked it out. Just keep in mind that there are often only a limited number of ways to say the same thing while adhering to the accuracy, verifiability, and NOR that are strictly required on Wikipedia. Cheers 76.65.182.59 (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See also links

I removed some links from the see also section. Iran's election didn't involve suicide bombings and militant activities. If you gonna put Iran then also put Pakistan's election, these two nations are both involved in same war with militants. Iran and Afghanistan are not as close as you assume. Iran's political system is based on Shia sect and is very anti-USA while Afghanistan's is the opposit, as Sunni and is dominated by pro-USA politicians.--119.73.1.122 (talk) 01:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, certainly these are two distinct countries and have differences. That does not mean that these two elections, in adjacent countries within months of each other, cannot be compared or contrasted to each other in terms of the fraud and vote-rigging charges, the contestations, and the possibility of protests - and that is just what has happened, with many mentions of the Iran election in the media coverage and analysis of this election. For this reason, the link to the Iran election article is relevant. 70.49.120.216 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hamid Karzai didn't only get most of the Pashtun votes from the south of the country but also from Nimroz, Farah, and Herat region in the west as well as from northern areas where Uzbeks, Turkmen, Pashtuns, Aimaqs, and a number of pro-Karzai Tajiks and others. Abdullah Abdullah only got votes from the criminal warlords, followers of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Other than criminals, gunmen, warlords, thieves, bandits and their family and friends, etc., no educated Afghans like them because they are blamed for the 1990s ethnic civil war which destroyed much of the country. This is why Abdullah's votes will be very low in the end, which I believe will be around 15%. Most Afghans are trying to go forward with new faces, Abdullah's face is a reminder of dark days to majority of Afghans. Also, many Afghan refugees (most of whom want Karzai) travelled from Pakistan to vote in Afghanistan. That's another reason why Karzai is expected to get higher votes. Afghan refugees are citizens of Afghanistan just living on a temporary bases in Pakistan until 2012 and by law they are entitled to cast their votes inside Afghanistan.--119.73.1.122 (talk) 01:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comment clearly indicates that you have a strong POV. I'm in no way disagreeing that Karzai may very well have gotten more than just the Pashtun vote. But as for the external links you removed, you yourself mention the criminal warlords and the 1990s ethnic civil war - that is precisely the reason for the links Civil war in Afghanistan, Northern Alliance that you removed. Those links serve to provide background and context for what you described. The other link you removed, Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), is also relevant, speaking to the lack of security that has been central to the election, touching all aspects of the election (the registration drive, the campaign, the election monitoring, the voting day, and vote-counting period). 70.49.120.216 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Call my statement whatever you want but I just left a comment to help editors get a better picture of the situation on the ground. I'm telling you facts whether you believe it or not. Regardless of race or tribes, all Afghans hate the Northern Alliance which is represented by Abdullah Abdullah. You see reports saying that up to 70% of Afghanistan is controlled by Taliban and that is telling you that majority of Afghans rather allow Taliban to control them than the Northern Alliance (known in the region as "Northern Thugs"). About the links, you need to follow the guidelines of Wikipedia on that. You're telling us that you're the strong POV pusher by explaining why you placed those links of other articles, especially an article about Iran. I know you are an Iranian living in Canada (User:Geo Swan). I don't know why you're editing with annon IP. Just so you know that Iran and Afghanistan are natural enemies. In early 1700s the Afghans destroyed the Iranian empire. Today Iran is charging the poor Afghans over $100 for a 1 month visa. On the other hand, Pakistan gives free visas to Afghans. For this and many other reasons Iranian articles should not be added with Afghan articles.--119.73.0.220 (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I did not "call" your comment anything, nor did I use the word "pusher" - I merely observed that you have strong feelings about this, that you a definite point of view. Perhaps you have some kind of prior history with User:Geo Swan, but I am not that user. I am indeed in Canada, but I am not Iranian as you suggested. I include the link to the Iranian election in the See also section, not because I have any affinity at all for Iran, but for the reasons that I outlined earlier in my comments above. 70.49.120.216 (talk) 05:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop lying you are of Iranian background living in Toronto, Canada. Your other name here is User:Sherurcij and the IP you are editing with is also used by Geo Swan. In general Iranians living in the west don't like telling people of their background and they are known to lie to everyone.--119.73.4.115 (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't use sockpuppets. And, to the best of my knowledge, neither does User:Sherurcij. Over the last five years I have very occasionally edited using an IP address. It has always been an accident. It happened when I was house-sitting for a friend several years ago. And, very occasionally, when I opened a wikipedia page through a google search, and didn't realize I wasn't logged in. This hasn't happened for six months or more. 99.8 percent of my edits are using my own ID. I am cross with myself when this happens, because those articles don't show up on my watchlist.

I am on record as hating sockpuppetry, here. I write on controversial topics. In spite of my best efforts to fully comply with the spirit and letter of all wikipedia policies the controversial topics trigger the attention of POV-pushing sockpuppets. I have been wikistalked by over half a dozen dedicated, deceitful sockpuppets. I really do hate them.

So, User:119.73.x.x, who uses Asia Pacific Network Information Centre, in AU, what makes you level this accusation? And, I am curious, why aren't you editing using a wiki-id? Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Oh yeah. I don't have any Iranian background. I have done practically no editing of articles related to Iran, and I am mystified why you would leave this accusation. Geo Swan (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are dishonest, a great liar and an ignorant Iranian. This link (http://samspade.org/whois/76.65.181.28) is telling me that you are behind the IP because you are from Toronto and so is that IP. Not only that, you and the IP both share similar way of writing. You think the articles you create get attention and are read by many. Nobody reads your articles and stop reinserting Iranian election in the see also section.--119.73.6.234 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Full list of presidential candidates

Since the full list of presidential candidates can stand well on its own, and this article is getting full, I created a new page for it at List of candidates in the Afghan presidential election, 2009 and added a link to it at the top of the Candidates section. Formats (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

A bot reversed this edit. I agree that this is an instance when the bot got it wrong. I am new to this article. I added the list to this article. I considered adding a separate article, and didn't, because I have found it is the kind of thing that triggers mergists' concerns over what they consider "unnecessary forks". I agree, it can stand on its own.

I came to this article when I found the article on one of the candidates, Frozan Fana, had been nominated for deletion.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)