| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled
editI would like to start by quoting the article: "..In Parliament, he has been active in suppressing discrimination against Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians. ..".
Untitled
editThis phrasing in my opinion can be put more clearly and conclusively.
As a matter of fact saying that this member of parliament has been "active in suppressing discrimination..."
may easily be understood to have the exactly OPPOSED MEANING of the one (probably...) intended by the writer.
That is to say, that it can be understood to mean that he helped to "cover up discrimination", or something of the sort.
I could have made the correction myself, saying that he "had an active role in 'fighting', or 'abolishing' discrimination against Jews, but since I am myself unsure which is the
intended and correct meaning -- I cannot see howI can really correct this
sentence myself.
Which can only go to show just how undesirably ambiguous it is.
I hope this suggestion will be perceived as useful, which is its sole purpose.
(Monkey dog2088 (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC))
{{{}}}