Jump to content

Talk:2009 Afghan presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Two unwarranted reversions for "copyright violations"

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Some free advice:
  1. You seem like a new contributor, and may not be aware you can be blocked for personal attacks. I think you would be well advised to review WP:NPA.
  2. If someone triggers a concern they are using multiple user-ids, do not start leveling accusations, its uncivil, and it can be very embarrassing for you, if your concern was due to not fully understanding how the wikipedia works.
    1. I am from Toronto. But I do not use Bell as my ISP, I never have. I haven't a clue what you thought that link proved. I have no idea how many wikipedia contributors are from Toronto. I am sure there are lots.
      • Oh yeah, while Bell Canada's headquarters are in Toronto, it has subscribers across Canada. So I don't think you can be sure User:76.65.181.28 is from Toronto.
    2. An apparently unique identifying editing style is not sufficient justification for leveling an accusation in an obnoxious fashion.
    3. Bear in mind there are some accepted reasons why some contributors start multiple IDs.
    4. When there are clues that trigger my concern some contributor might be a sockpuppet I leave a civil question, doing my best to raise my concern in a non-confrontational manner. Then I am not embarrassed if there is a legitimate explanation for whatever triggered my concern.
    5. There are other channels for for checking out concerns over sockpuppetry that do not require you to level insults at other contributors.
Don't bother apologizing. Just don't do it again. Geo Swan (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a non involved editor, who doesn't live nor has even been to Canada and have no relation to Iran I have to agree with Geoswan here. Your comments are unacceptable 119. Do not make such baseless personal attacks again Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of presidential candidates

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Polling stations

[edit]

One of the allegations I've read that I don't believe is covered in this article (although I may have missed it) is that there were a large number of non existant polling stations as well as polling stations that were closed but still reported results. Also while we mention ballot box stuffing, I believe there were specific claims of a number of polling stations reporting significantly more results then voters and some polling stations with abnormally high numbers of voters (there is brief mention of this in the post election vote count part but it should perhaps be expanded) or specifically in some cases women voters Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since over 80% of Afghanistan is in Taliban control,,,,we can't rely on any of the western media reports because it's obvious that western media reporters didn't go to most polling station sites. They only visited few safe ones and make everything out of that. All the media reports are based on local people expressing their personal views, and those people in that area are usually forced to lie to the media. Another point is why the entire media keeps painting a picture that Karzai won by massive fraud when there are no Afghans complaining? I mean if Karzai really won by fraud then surely many Afghans in every city would've been protesting in anger. It's just this one Tajik loser by the name of Abdullah Abdullah who is appearing in the media barking about Karzai and mass fraud. Afghanistan has been ruled by Pashtuns since 1709 and the majority of the people in that country are Pashtun and they always vote for their own. Karzai not only won because he is Pashtun, but because he is very unique...he is bringing develoments and good economy to all the people of his nation. The west, especially the western media which relies on information from the public, are going to lose in Afghanistan because of ignorance and bad judgement. I say this because many of the Pashtuns were still supporting the west against the Taliban....now that the west looks at Karzai as a bad guy this makes even those pro-western Pashtuns to unite with Taliban and show the world what Pashtun race is made of. Pashtun will play an honest game of russian roulette with you and do you westerners have the balls to play with them? This article is all speaking about Karzai won due to massive election fraud but there is no evidence to convince anyone.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.144 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 September 2009

Peter W. Galbraith would disagree. GregorB (talk) 08:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the situation in Afghanistan, it doesn't seem surprising that few Afghans are holding protests so the lack of protests hardly seems surprising. After all, it's sadly not as if most Afghans have had a lot to cheer about for a long time yet how many public protests did you see thorough all the shit they went thorough? In fact, if many people don't dare vote it seems ludicrious to suggest they would dare engage in protests. And if over 80% of Afghanistan is under Taliban control (by your own admission) and the Taliban have called for a boycott of the election, even without visiting the places you have to wonder how exactly there could be any reliable result from that 80% (and this is I believe one of the reasons why the media has called the election into question). In fact, while this isn't address in Human rights in Afghanistan I wonder if public protests would even be legal... Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

Any special reason noone has added the final results to the article yet? —Nightstallion 22:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We won't know them until after November 7, 2009. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone change the headline from "Karzai wins" to "Karzai declared winner" as I think its a more accurate description of the situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.3.236.9 (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

number of votes?

[edit]

Even though Karzai didn't win outright (he was declared winner) should the number of votes from the first rounds be display in the top? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.219.171 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. 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) 00:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. 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) 20:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Afghan presidential election, 2009. 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) 01:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Afghan_presidential_election&oldid=1219374321"