Talk:United Against Nuclear Iran

Anti-Iranian group

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)

Orijentolog - you should review such Wikipedia policy's as WP:Neutral Point of View before editing further. Being opposed to the Islamic Republic of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is not "anti-Iranian."ShamWow (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I look like fool to you? You are constantly trying to equalize Jewish emigration from Arab lands with so-called "exodus" or "antisemitism" on other articles, and you are talking about neutrality?! We all know UANI is a racist anti-Iranian organization which prevented Ahmadinejad from his speech in Gotham Hall regardless he repeatedly denied existence of Iranian military nuclear program and he has not any authorization on Iranian nuclear program at all. --93.142.157.143 (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Orijentolog, once again, I suggest you review Wikipedia's policies. What evidence do you have that UANI is racist or anti-Iranian, rather than simply against the Islamic Republic of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon?ShamWow (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? This organization blocked speech of Iranian president who is not linked with Iranian nuclear program, which means they are pure anti-Iranian racists. --93.143.42.110 (talk) 23:26, 5 November 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)

Stop your POV pushing, well poisoning that isn't even based on reliable sources. Right Web, run by the highly partisan Institute for Policy Studies, is not a reliable source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:42, 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)

An article relies upon the use of reliable sources. Right Web is not one of those. I hope you read WP:Reliable sources before you continue to edit. A "different perspective" isn't valid if it's not from a unreliable source. This Wikipedia page uses an abundance of references from reliable, objective media sources (New York Times, Financial Times, Reuters, Los Angeles Times). I suggest you find sources of that caliber. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:35, 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)

Wikipedia has decided that these sources meet the qualification of WP:RS, regardless of whether or not you happen to believe they have "Zionist ownership". You're welcome to go to WP:RS/N and open a section asking if the "New York Times, Financial Times, Reuters, Los Angeles Times" are "not reliable" because "some of them have Zionist ownership". Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this, partisan sources can be included so long as the reader is informed about the political inclination of the source in question? The article had a WP:POV problem before Truthtellers78 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. If something is not a reliable source, it is not to be included. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if a source is reliable or not depends on the context, there is no single source that is reliable in all circumstances. I think that Right Web is a reliable source when it come to offering a different view about united against nuclear Iran. An article cannot be based on a single source or the perspective of a single editor. Can we agree that right webs view and their sources will be included in the article? Truthtellers78 (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's NOT a reliable source for use in this article of anywhere in Wikipedia. It does depend on the context. I suggest you find different sources for your "alternative" views of UANI. And it's simply a lie to say that this article is based on a single source - look at the wide variety of sources applied in the reference section. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that you are just making up excuses. Can I interpret this as you won't accept any criticism of this organization and will always revert and remove views that doesn't fit your agenda or point of view? Because you can't as a single editor dictate to other editors which sources are acceptable/ reliable and which are not. This means that the whole article must be written according to your point of view which is not acceptable. Truthtellers78 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all and don't accuse me of saying things I didn't say. All I said is that Right Web is not a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia. There are plenty of other sources out there you can use. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is not necessary, I will put back the information and you have simply no reason to revert of change it because the information actually comes from United Against Nuclear Iran's website. I will link directly to them this time. Truthtellers78 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruled by a judge to be in a secret relation with the United States Government

I think the sourcing here is perfectly obvious, but another editor disagrees.

Perez, Evan (March 23, 2015). "Obama administration shuts down lawsuit to protect U.S. secrets on Iran". CNN.

and

Gerstein, Josh (March 23, 2015). "Judge tosses libel lawsuit on state secrets grounds".

I am open to another opinion. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If the citations above were being used as sourcing to add the statement "It has secret business with the U.S. Government," I believe the editor who reverted it has a point. The sources in question do not establish that the organization "has secret business" with the U.S. Government, although I did read the parts where the attorneys for the plaintiff allege that it must somehow. Furthermore, thrusting that interpretation directly into the lede is undue. If you're interested in adding this material to the article, however, I would recommend that you start by adding the relevant facts, carefully focused and written in an NPOV manner, into a new section in the body of the article. If it then becomes apparent that something should be added to the lede, the issue can be taken up, but judging by the way it looks right now, it probably won't present anything that fits there. Hope this helps. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's another WP:RS https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/26/new-low-obama-doj-federal-courts-abusing-state-secrets-privilege/ Court Accepts DOJ’s ‘State Secrets’ Claim to Protect Shadowy Neocons: a New Low. By Glenn Greenwald.

I think it's fair to say in the article that a the Obama DOJ said, and a judge agreed, that subjecting them to litigation for their actions would risk disclosure of vital “state secrets.” --Nbauman (talk) 17:46, 27 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)

The relevant quote would appear to be:

(UANI), which is very likely a front for some combination of the Israeli and U.S. intelligence services.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, there is no reason to have two different sections about the same court case, especially when one section is a single line. If something is important, it should be summarized in the lead, not given multiple sections. KateWishing (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

fas.org articles

E.G.,

1. State Secrets Claim Challenged in Defamation Lawsuit
2. Some State Secrets Cases Are a Secret, Govt Says

Not a NPOV article

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)

Secrets case moved out of lead

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)

Good point. What do you think about this "scholarly source"? Is it relevant or reliable? An opinion article can be used to state facts such as "UANI is consisted mostly of American Jewish and neoconservative groups or individuals"? I would like to know your opinion--Averysoda (talk) 01:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source on Google Books. Since the claims involved are controversial, they should be attributed. Maybe something like: "According to an MSNBC report, UANI consists mostly of American Jewish groups. Economist Sasan Fayazmanesh has described the coalition as a "neo-conservative set-up," while UANI maintains that it is non-partisan." And we should only place these in the lead if other significant sources routinely describe UANI as Jewish or neoconservative, per the emphasis section of WP:LEAD. I doubt the Jewish part deserves such weight. KateWishing (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless MehrdadFR or other user raise an objection based on Wikipedia's policy, tomorrow I'll remove that part from the lead. Although I'd appreciate if you do it instead. Based on your contributions, everybody knows that you are an impartial editor.--Averysoda (talk) 02:40, 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)

I don't have anything against removal from lead, but inserting "undue weight" in Criticism section is contradictory per se. --MehrdadFR (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not. Fayazmanesh is not a notable person, and the specific criticism, of one video, dose not seem to warrant the lengthy paragraph devoted to it. All Rows4 (talk) 05:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Fayazmanesh is an activist academic and his focus is economics[1], not international relations. He does not appear to be at all qualified to comment on the subject. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's your own POV. Fayazmanesh is an academic, cited work about international relations has been published by academic publisher, and his profession is relevant because UANI advocates economic sanctions. I kindly advice you to stop with such whitewashing. --MehrdadFR (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Socking

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)

Current edit war

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)