Please read the talk page of Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. Your inclusions to this Wikipedia article are not stated anywhere in the Nation article on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. I quoted DIRECTLY from the article in the Nation, verbatim! Stop trying to push POV and stop misquoting sources. Read my edit and then read the Nation article once again and compare the two and then you tell me who is a vandal? ExRat (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your further edits to Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni:
You can not distort quotes from your very own source. Since you have not responded to the article's discussion page, I will simply paste what I have written here:
Your constant inclusion states:
"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."
You then then give 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.
Nowhere does that article state "most" human rights groups believe "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.
This is the exact information properly sourced and accurately stated in the article that I included. Yet, you keep reverting exact quotes from the article. You can not arbitrarily distort Mr. Kim's (the author) words and insert your own conclusions then use his article in The Nation for a source for apparent POV. ExRat (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.
