Talk:Imam Khamenei says anti-US policies stronger than Hiroshima bomb

Minor edit: Cleaned up the "membership" information for readability. Removed "conflicting" from "conflicting reports" as redundant - claims of 400,000 and 11 million are obviously conflicting. There should probably be a source for the 400,000 estimate. StockGear 15:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is; in the same link that has 11,000,000.--Blivit 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced Facts
Blivit, there are some items that need to be addressed: Cheers, Jcart1534 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You should only list the sources that you obtained information from. The source from Mehr with only photos is not necessary and should be removed.
 * You should only cite facts that are sourced and listed. For instance, the comment about the 11,000,000 volunteer forces is not found in any of your listed sources.
 * You should try and fill out the article a bit further, with perhaps some balance of viewpoints (maybe a criticism from an NGO or other government).


 * Inclusion of the link for photos are debatable.
 * The militia's numerical strength can be added as an external link.
 * The objective is to report neutrally and avoid advocacy journalism. I don't object to statements defending the U.S. and NGOs stating that is it benevolent & not oppressive.  But again, such information would be supplemental and wouldn't add value.  This is a simply a report of an event from a neutral perspective.  I am not supposed to necessarily say that Khamenei is wrong because of x, y, & z.  I need to neutrally report the speech.  Finally, this particular speech is not likely to draw any reaction from the U.S. or E.U. leaders.--Blivit 06:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the photo web link, it might be best set up as an external link rather than a source, since you haven't used the photos in your article. The militia's strength is better now the way you changed it. Thanks. The neutral reporting issue certainly brings out opinion! There are many different viewpoints on that, which is great. You have done a series of articles now in a similar fashion (reporting on speeches etc.) and I have enjoyed them. It had occurred to me that if one picked a particular politician or religious leader (from anywhere in the world) and reported on his/her speeches, after a while you might wonder if someone in that person's country might disagree with some of the statements. In a couple of your sources, they go on to expand on other things beyond the speech. For instance, Reuters then talks about an upcoming meeting with the United States in Iraq and the tensions between Iran and the United States. Aside from mentioning the speech, The Guardian article also goes on at length about the Belarus president meeting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and mentions some criticism of lack of press freedom in Belarus. They do that for interest and the appearance of neutrality, I suspect. I guess, personally, I was hoping you could expand on the articles a bit more because you are obviously knowledgeable and I want to encourage you. :) --Jcart1534 10:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumping to some one's defense
I had some time ago written an article that the U.S. State Department was accusing Iran of state terrorism. Soon, I found DragonFire1024 vehemently objecting to the news report and asking me to present facts to debunk the report—each accusation specifically. Such way of reporting is not done by reputable news sources, albeit sometimes giving background is okay.

Yes, sometimes giving a background is fine. However, I am afraid that we are confusing neutral & factual reporting with an exhortation to jump to the defense of the accused & bending over backwards to clear the entity's name. That wouldn't be neutral - more so for events that aren't likely or never elicit an immediate response. Those incidents that do bring out a response from the opposing side after some time should be included in later news reports.--Blivit 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be done by reputable news sources. And to have a 'balance of what and who says what to who etc...If someone said you were a moron (example only) wouldn't you want a defense POV if it was reported in an article? DragonFire1024 06:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Let us assume you & I were public officials. Next, you call me a moron.  At this point, news outlets can release the info.  They don't have to wait for my to put to respond several days later to broadcast & publish the incident.  I recall a principle in broadcasting in the U.S. that says stations should give the accused equal time to air a response later.--Blivit 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)