![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This organization is Anti-Iranian which means it wants to stop Iranian progress, don't deny it. -- 93.142.157.143 ( talk) 19:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that this article was balanced, it was written from the point of view of the advocacy group itself and
No third party so I took the liberty to improve the article by writing about the political and ideological connections of the article.
I don't know if we should call it an anti-Iran organization but it certainly has views about the role that Iran should be playing in the Middle East. We should be able to say that the organization has been described as an anti-Iran organization and that I oppose Iranian expansionism in the region and nuclear capability in both a civilian and possibly military sense.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing this to you plot spoiler, the whole article cannot be written from the perspective of a single editor; do not remove well sourced content that doesn't fit your personal point of view. United against a nuclear Iran is NOT non-partisan even though they claim to be, it is a POLITICAL advocacy group with an ideological roots and political agenda and connection that need to be known. We should even be able to include criticism being leveraged against this advocacy group.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Lets us both contribute to this article from different perspectives and sources, lets include both sides of the story, both sources that criticize United against nuclear Iran and those who endorse or promote it for whatever reason. I see nothing wrong with that. Right Web is a partisan institute; I agree but so is united against nuclear Iran. Just because a source is partisan doesn't make is unreliable does it? Even partisan group that state facts and truths can't they? If not why should your partisan sources be more reliable than mine?
I really hope that edit warring can be prevented here.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with your statement were there an official Wikipedia list of reliable, objective media sources. The sources your mention are only reliable according to you, I happen to know that some of them have Zionist ownership. I have come across articles that use blogs as sources. WIll you be reverting this article?
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the sourcing here is perfectly obvious, but another editor disagrees.
and
I am open to another opinion. --
Kendrick7
talk
03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fwiw, here's another article, from The New Zealand Herald. In their opinion, the manner in which the U.S. government intervened into the case suggests that "It's difficult to escape the conclusion that United Against is a front organization for U.S. intelligence". -- Delirium ( talk) 21:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit, the
Intercept source does not support the claim that UANI "is funded by US and Israeli intelligence agencies." The closest line is Or could it be that the CIA or some other U.S. government agency has created and controls the group, which would be a form of government-disseminated propaganda, which happens to be illegal?
, which is obviously speculative. Per
WP:ASSERT, opinions should not be stated as facts. (However, I disagree with Plot Spoiler's
assertion that the Intercept is a primary source -- the court documents are the primary source.)
KateWishing (
talk)
22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)(UANI), which is very likely a front for some combination of the Israeli and U.S. intelligence services.
E.G.,
So far, two editors have tried to tag this this as not a NPOV article. The article reads as a advertisement for United Against Nuclear Iran. The tags should remain on the article until it is fixed. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: that part of the lead summarizes the "State secrets case" section. I believe it belongs in the lead because it received very wide coverage in reliable sources, and the WP:LEAD is intended to summarize the body, but in any case moving the summary to the section it summarizes just makes it redundant. KateWishing ( talk) 01:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that the opinion of Sasan Fayazmanesh is lead-worthy. I support removal of this from the lead. All Rows4 ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note I have performed a revert here. This is not an endorsement of a specific version but just a revert of a block evader. -- NeilN talk to me 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I see there use to be a few sockpuppets of editors banned for POV pushing supporting the removal of well-sourced information but even with them gone the war continues. I see no reasoning above for deleting the information, but maybe I could be persuaded so let's come to a consensus here before further edits are made. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This organization is Anti-Iranian which means it wants to stop Iranian progress, don't deny it. -- 93.142.157.143 ( talk) 19:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that this article was balanced, it was written from the point of view of the advocacy group itself and
No third party so I took the liberty to improve the article by writing about the political and ideological connections of the article.
I don't know if we should call it an anti-Iran organization but it certainly has views about the role that Iran should be playing in the Middle East. We should be able to say that the organization has been described as an anti-Iran organization and that I oppose Iranian expansionism in the region and nuclear capability in both a civilian and possibly military sense.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 22:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm writing this to you plot spoiler, the whole article cannot be written from the perspective of a single editor; do not remove well sourced content that doesn't fit your personal point of view. United against a nuclear Iran is NOT non-partisan even though they claim to be, it is a POLITICAL advocacy group with an ideological roots and political agenda and connection that need to be known. We should even be able to include criticism being leveraged against this advocacy group.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 23:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Lets us both contribute to this article from different perspectives and sources, lets include both sides of the story, both sources that criticize United against nuclear Iran and those who endorse or promote it for whatever reason. I see nothing wrong with that. Right Web is a partisan institute; I agree but so is united against nuclear Iran. Just because a source is partisan doesn't make is unreliable does it? Even partisan group that state facts and truths can't they? If not why should your partisan sources be more reliable than mine?
I really hope that edit warring can be prevented here.
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with your statement were there an official Wikipedia list of reliable, objective media sources. The sources your mention are only reliable according to you, I happen to know that some of them have Zionist ownership. I have come across articles that use blogs as sources. WIll you be reverting this article?
Truthtellers78 ( talk) 00:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I think the sourcing here is perfectly obvious, but another editor disagrees.
and
I am open to another opinion. --
Kendrick7
talk
03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fwiw, here's another article, from The New Zealand Herald. In their opinion, the manner in which the U.S. government intervened into the case suggests that "It's difficult to escape the conclusion that United Against is a front organization for U.S. intelligence". -- Delirium ( talk) 21:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding
this edit, the
Intercept source does not support the claim that UANI "is funded by US and Israeli intelligence agencies." The closest line is Or could it be that the CIA or some other U.S. government agency has created and controls the group, which would be a form of government-disseminated propaganda, which happens to be illegal?
, which is obviously speculative. Per
WP:ASSERT, opinions should not be stated as facts. (However, I disagree with Plot Spoiler's
assertion that the Intercept is a primary source -- the court documents are the primary source.)
KateWishing (
talk)
22:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)(UANI), which is very likely a front for some combination of the Israeli and U.S. intelligence services.
E.G.,
So far, two editors have tried to tag this this as not a NPOV article. The article reads as a advertisement for United Against Nuclear Iran. The tags should remain on the article until it is fixed. Gouncbeatduke ( talk) 23:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: that part of the lead summarizes the "State secrets case" section. I believe it belongs in the lead because it received very wide coverage in reliable sources, and the WP:LEAD is intended to summarize the body, but in any case moving the summary to the section it summarizes just makes it redundant. KateWishing ( talk) 01:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that the opinion of Sasan Fayazmanesh is lead-worthy. I support removal of this from the lead. All Rows4 ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Please note I have performed a revert here. This is not an endorsement of a specific version but just a revert of a block evader. -- NeilN talk to me 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I see there use to be a few sockpuppets of editors banned for POV pushing supporting the removal of well-sourced information but even with them gone the war continues. I see no reasoning above for deleting the information, but maybe I could be persuaded so let's come to a consensus here before further edits are made. Sepsis II ( talk) 01:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)