Talk:March 2015 Sanaa mosque bombings

Info removed on charges of undue weight and unreliable source

An info I had added about a Houthi official's claim of evidence about US involvement in the Sana'a mosque bombing was removed. Reasons cited was giving "undue weight" and using "unreliable source." But I think the charge of undue weight is completely irrelevant and nonsense for how can citing a Houthi official about bombings against Houthi supporters bear undue weight in an article about exactly that incident? Though, as for the charge that the source used was unreliable I'm looking forward to see why Fars News Agency is deemed unreliable. What is certain is that the agency is a respected and popular news source at least in Iran. Strivingsoul (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Iran does not have press freedom, and Fars is a government mouthpiece that shouldn't be considered a reliable news source. The contention that the U.S. is somehow in league with al Qaeda is WP:FRINGE and such a claim should absolutely not be presented with such thin sourcing. Furthermore, the addition smacks of WP:COATRACKing, which is discouraged. And beyond that, your edit wasn't even remotely WP:NPOV: "the popular Ansarullah movement"? "Spy agencies"? Please take some time to review Wikipedia's policy guidelines, including WP:COI. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Iran does not have press freedom" According to whom? I'd argue Iran has the most press freedom in the world! That there are a few journalists convicted for breach of law or working for foreign intelligence services every some time does not undermine press freedom.

As for the allegation being "fringe" that's at least a definite indisputable fact that Al-Qaeda has been originally a CIA creation. Even Hilary Clinton, former US Secretary of State has admitted that on record! This has been a subject of controversy among critiques. Also have a look at United States and state-sponsored terrorism. So the idea is not fringe. Plus even if so, the very fact that it's been raised by an official directly affected by and responsible for this case makes it a significant minority POV about this particular case.

As for Houthis being "popular," that's supported by the fact the they literally control half of Yemen and have managed to mobilize massive rallies in the past and present. Example! Strivingsoul (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm not sure where to start with this, so I'm not going to start at all. Suffice to say you do not have consensus for the paragraph for the reasons I have articulated above, and I suggest you branch out from Iranian media to get your information about the world. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yikes. I'm pretty sure where you're coming from! Another instance of dodging a reasonable argument by a typical western with the prevalent Eurocentric prejudice! I also advise you to branch out from Corporate media to get your information form the world for they are dominated by a few dozen mega-corporations and their narrow profit interests. An instance of how disastrous that pattern could be for the world was well manifested in the Media coverage of the Iraq War Strivingsoul (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

He keeps adding Press TV quotes to the article on Houthis too. I gave up on deleting them. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are not telling us, @Monochrome Monitor, that we should censor the sources based on your personal preference, are you? Strivingsoul (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not my personal preference, its wiki policy. Press Tv is a state-run propaganda organ of Iran (which regularly produces racist diatribes against Jews and other minorities I might add), therefore it is not a reliable source. --Monochrome_Monitor 08:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Media are meant to be for propaganda! Don't make any mistake! There's no objective, free media in the entire planet! All media sources are influenced by political or financial interests/prejudices/preferences of the owners. So there's no reason to single out one out of many. But as for Press TV, I think it provides a vital and unique perspective of the events for Islamic Republic of Iran is pretty much the only government in the world that is more or less independent from tyrannical corporate world order -- and that's exactly the reason why it is target of vehement Western/Saudi propaganda which you also seem to be blindly parroting here. Press TV giving voice to critics of Jewish power elite or the Zionist state has nothing to do with racism, unless you believe in Zionist political narrative for which your Zionist cliche claim of "Jews being a minority" is such a dead give-away. True, jews are demographically a minority but they are virtually half of the power structure! Read Jewish Supremacism by David Duke to know why! But hold your horses! You don't have to remind that the author has been a Klansman three decades ago for that doesn't affect the obvious scholarly value of his work! Strivingsoul (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I really, really hope you're just trolling, man. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not trolling! I'm pointing out the flawed arguments used here to discredit sources based on biases and pressumptions that are promoted by the powers that be. Strivingsoul (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow. If this doesn't warrant a topic ban, I don't know what does. --Monochrome_Monitor 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Since when an intelligent discussion and information sharing warrants a ban on Wikipedia? You don't have to whine and agitate "topic ban" if you find yourself unable to respond to the arguments! Strivingsoul (talk) 02:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

How is endorsing racism "intelligent discussion"? Iran aside, you just showed blatant hatred of Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on, but you just threw yourself under the bus there. On many issues you could offer a new perspective, but no one is going to take you seriously anymore. It's one thing to be pro-Iran and it's another thing to be anti-jewish. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Statements of facts are neither "anti-Jewish" or "pro-Iran" or pro- or anti-anything for that matter! Every group, every people and every government should be revered for their services and criticized for their vices. Jews are no exception either unless you believe in some sort of pro-Jewish exceptionalism which is at the core of Zionist/Jewish power narrative! Jewish Supremacism is one of those daring attempts at documenting the destructive impact of Jewish power over the modern world. And don't expect ADL or Israeli government have anything good to say about the author and book for obvious reasons! Strivingsoul (talk) 04:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:YESPOV

I have removed original research claim of Houthi leader. He just express his idea that does not proof. Please do not add such claim (original research) unless they proof. Wikipedia is not newspaper to include everyone's view point. --Anton^Talk 03:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please also remove the original research on the article Houthis. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The removal is illegitimate and invalid.! Houthi leader is not "everyone!" He is one of the most relevant figures involved with the incident! Including his opinion is just the least that must be done towards neutrality! I therefore recover the deleted part. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:YESPOV --Anton^Talk 07:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking, and I can't find a reliable source reporting on Abdul-Malik al-Houthi's purported speech blaming the United States and Israel (how original!) for the bombings. If somebody can dig one up, I think it should be included, but I'm not willing to cite Iranian or Hezbollah propaganda for kind of claims he allegedly made. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Fars News Agency is reliable for the POV it reports on this specific subject. Considering WP:YESPOV,WP:NPV and WP:BIAS citing the POV is valid. Excluding POVs by Hezbullah and Iranian sources risks NPV violation and Systematic bias. Strivingsoul (talk) 07:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

His claim is irreverent to the article unless he prove. We cannot add false/propaganda/assumption to the article. If so, it would lead to propaganda vs. propaganda. It is better to avoid such statement. --Anton^Talk 07:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. Per WP:V, our highest obligation in including information is making sure it is verifiable and reliably sourced. Including inadequate sources, such as Iranian/Hezbollah propaganda, simply for the sake of "balance" is an example of WP:GEVAL and flies in the face of Wikipedia's commitment to accuracy. As I said, if reliable sources (including indigenous news outlets, like the Yemen Times) report on the speech and everything seems to check out, by all means, it should be included (with due weight). But we can't compromise on the quality of the sources we cite in the name of countering "bias". -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2012 Sanaʽa bombing which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)