User talk:Nyisnotbad/Sandbox

The process should be:

The community works on the article here in your user space.
Together, we reach consensus/compromise language for the article, keeping in mind the need for proper sourcing, neutral point of view, properly weighting different information, and proper manuscript style.
When consensus is reached, you can announce it on the article's talk page and copy this new language to the new article.

Continued edit warring will get you nowhere and could lead to another block or worse. Let's take the diffs you propose, break them down, and see where we can go from here. We can also discuss the main changes you would like to make to the article.

You will find the article you keep blindly reverting to, here. The first thing I notice is that you keep (perhaps unintentionally) removing the template that tells everybody the article is protected. This does not remove the protection, but may cause some to be confused as to why they can not edit the article. On your talk page, you said you would like to include the following things in the article:

The fact that critics allege, with basis in fact, that Taheri deliberately concocts outright fabrications to discredit Iran, and that these stories are (at least in part) developed in conjunction/cooperation with neo-conservative Israel supporters associated with Benador Associates, who are without question Taheri's primary handlers and promoters.
Questions regarding ambiguities about his educational and professional backround, which render his self-proclaimed title of "Iran expert" suspect.

Item number one is difficult. Critics can alledge that Taheri has a particular motivation and it may be appropriate to include that in a "Criticisms" section. However, the only person that truly knows what motivates Taheri, is Taheri. He could quite easily be "deliberately concocting outright fabrications to discredit Iran" or he could be simply writing about things as he perceives them.

Item number two is more easily accomplished. If you have reliable, verfiable sources that contradict his educational or professional background, you can certainly add this information. I do not think it would be appropriate for the lead, but it could certainly be included in the education and career sections.

In conclusion, I would like to let you know that I, personally, appreciate your efforts here at Wikipedia. However, I think you will get a lot farther if you work in your user space, achieve consensus, and then post to the mainspace article, rather than continuing to revert. Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, have looked over the difference between the version that you reverted to and the current version, I found "zero" substantive difference. Items were rearranged, the protection template was removed, but there was no difference in the wording. Could you show the "specific" wording you would like to change? Ursasapien (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in on the Amir Taheri bio recently, to see if the bibliography with publishers and ISBNs was still there, after the article had been off my watchlist for several months. Seeing that Nyisnotbad had removed it (many times), I restored it once; Nyisnotbad again removed it.

I listed it on AIV. An editor commented, citing this intervention; another removed the listing.

For historical reasons, I guess, because of my earlier infrequent edits to restore the bibliography, I'm merely reporting that sequence of events. — Athaenara ✉ 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Urasapian[edit]

Any deletion of links or sources in the course of reverts has been unintentional. My only wish is:

1. to include at the top of Taheri's description where it is presently located, language to the effect of:

"....critics of various nationalities have alleged that Taheri's writings contain misrepresentations and, in some case, outright fabrications and self-serving material developed by neo-conservative supporters associated with Benador Associates"

2. In the education section, note that Amir Taheri's Benador Associaties biography simply indicates that he was educated "in" Tehran, London, and Paris and nowhere anywhere on the Internet, neither in English or Persian language sites are there any details provided as to which university he attended, or what he studied, are not provided. Seems like this matter of unexplained and unsubstantiated educational background claims should be of concern given that Taheri is advertised in Benador Associates promotional material as "an expert on Iran", and this identification is in turn repeated by the mainstream English-language publications in the United States in which Taheri is published.

There are the only 2 issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 14:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please sign your post. Second, I would love it if you spelled my username correctly. Its "Ursa" as in the Latin for "bear" connected with "Sapien" as in the Latin for "human." Third, PLEASE QUIT EDIT WARRING! You are only making yourself a target for blocking and you will not accomplish what you wish (the improvement of the article). Finally, there is no problem adding the two items above. You need to have reliable sources for those assertions. I can show you the code for inline citations or you can look at WP:CITE. I think the second statement may be harder to find a source, but there should be one out there. I truly hope you will take the time to get sources and add just these two statements without changing the whole article. I will change the article in your sandbox to reflect the main article with just these two changes. Ursasapien (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Ursasapien - The question is what is a "reliable" source? Seems like you're injecting your own POV into what is "reliable" and what is not. To me, those sources are more reliable than Benador Associaties references, which you endorse. Moreover, your appeal to "reliable sourcing" is all the more ironic given that the very subject of this article, Amir Taheri, is himself an unreliable source and that is the point of the edits that are being made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of reliable sources is not what I consider a reliable source, but what Wikipedia considers a reliable source (See WP:RS). I am not advocating any sources. I am simply saying you can not add text to the article that is not backed up by reliable sources. You may feel your opinion is more reliable than Taheri's opinion, but you need to cite a reliable journalist that has a similar opinion. Ursasapien (talk) 05:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-Ursasapien - Again, your position begs the question: What is a "reliable" source. Wikipedia gives us some general guidance (defining a "reliable" source as one which is "trustworthy or authoritative") but, again, what is "reliable" and "trustworthy" is totally subjective. What makes Benador Associates and Amir Taheri any more "trustworthy or authoritative" than the critics of Benador Associates and Amir Taheri? Frankly, the answer is pretty much nothing. Thus, the appeal to citing to "reliable" sources appears simply to be a smokescreen designed to deter and omit criticism of Taheri, who, again, is himself not a "reliable" source by Wikipedia's own definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.178.29 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 21 September 2007

"Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Your arguments over "What are reliable sources?" appears to be a smokescreen for the lack of any source (aside from you on original research). The article already contains plenty of criticism of Taheri. Can you point to any sources that say:

"Taheri deliberately concocts outright fabrications to discredit Iran."
"These stories are (at least in part) developed in conjunction/cooperation with neo-conservative Israel supporters associated with Benador Associates."
"Questions surround ambiguities about his educational and professional backround."

Instead of continuing to debate the reliability of sources, present some/any sources and then will see how we can incorporate them. Ursasapien (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I added some sources (which were previously there but deleted, by the way!).