Talk:John W. Limbert
| 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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Contentious / poorly sourced material about living person
[edit]The section "Lobbying controversy" is best handed under the page for the National Iranian American Council, which is currently protected from editing due to the contentiousness of the issue and lack of non-biased sourcing for the allegations. The issue is related to the National Iranian American Council, not Ambassador John Limbert.
Further, Ed Lasky and "The American Thinker" are not credible sources. The neoconservative Weekly Standard and Michael Goldfarb also have a well-known bias against the Obama administration's middle east policies, and Goldfarb's criticism is driven by innuendo -- not factual evidence of any wrongdoing. That a former US diplomat would meet with the Iranian Ambassador is not noteworthy or remarkable. It is called "track II diplomacy" and happens routinely.
It is hard to conclude anything other than that this section does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and the sources are questionable:
- Questionable sources
- Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidave2009 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)