Talk:Amir Taheri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sunni-Shiite terror network[edit]

Babakexorramdin, you seem to get a couple of things wrong here. The 'main Pamiri party' in the Tajk civil war was the Lali Badakhshan, which Taheri does not even mention. A 'Talysh nationalist movement' he does not mention either; he is talking about Sunni Taleshi groups. But even if Taheri stated that the Talysh are invaders from Mars - CreazySuit is right: as long as this would go unnoticed elsewhere, it would not belong here (see WP:OR). --Ankimai (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. He sates that Pamiri and Talysh are Sunni, while they are shiites. Creazysuit mentioned the problem about the formulation. By the ay nice searching job about Lali Badakshshan and Talysh. The way it was phrased by me was not OR. Thanks --Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Babak, Do you have a published, reliable source that points out Taheri calls Shia groups Sunni? If not, you are prohibited from including your synthesis into the article. This is considered a form of original research. We are prohibited from doing what you suggested: Source A says "blah" and Source B says "blah", therefore we can surmise "blah, blah, blah". Please search for a reliable, published source that analyzes this article. Your continued reversions could be seen as edit warring. Ursasapien (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just for the record: there are Shiite Talysh, and there are Sunni Talysh (Clifton/Deckinga/Lucht/Tiessen, Sociolinguistic Situation of the Talysh in Azerbaijan, SIL Electronic Survey Reports, 2005, p. 5). --Ankimai (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Im Kamran and secondly yes I have many sources. It is very easy: you go to the artikel for Talysh people and Pamiri people and there you see lengthy texts and many sources., What I did was not original reserach but simply I said what Amir Taheri says, and what the reality is. Thanks--Babakexorramdin (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the term "Im Kamran". What do you mean by that? Secondly, what you are describing is what is called synthesis. Taheri writes, "The Taleshi Sunnis are pro-Russian and anti-American" while the Talysh people are actually Shia. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. However, if you had an article criticizing Taheri and specifically pointing out that he confused Sunni people with Shiite people, then we could describe this criticism. In order to be included in Wikipedia, this criticism has to be in print already. Ursasapien (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, have you read a source that disagrees with the point of Taheri's article (that radical Shiites and Sunnis are united in their hatred for America and will work cooperatively to cause harm to the U.S.)? If so, perhaps that would be a better thing to include in the article. Ursasapien (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said My name is Kamran. All information is provided there already. It is simple what I say: I cite from Amir taheri's article, and then I refer to the reality. I do not put interpretations there, it is up to the reader, so it is by no means an Original research. Plus I did not wrote ""The Taleshi Sunnis are pro-Russian and anti-American" while the Talysh people are actually Shia. " Please read the edit history. I once wrote something and then one editor said that this way it seems like OR, then I rephrased it in a way which was no OR. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran, I see no mention in the article you reference regarding the Pamiri party. Additionally, It appears that part of the Talysh people are indeed Sunni. Nevertheless, what we really need is an article that criticizes Taheri directly for writing that radical Sunnis and radical Shiites cooperate when it is in the pursuit of damaging America and her interests. If we had an article directly criticising Taheri, then we could simply cite it instead of connecting to articles to make a third point. Ursasapien (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I understand what you write. But what I say was I wrote "Turtles are brown" and "Turtles live in swamps etc..." separately. I did not say that brown turtles live in swaps. that is up to the reader to conclude or not.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote:
"In a March 29, 2008 article, Taheri states that the the Shia Iranian Government supports Sunni groups such as Al Qaeda. Taheri states that Iran supports of a number of Sunni groups, including the Afghan Hezbi Islami (Islamic Party), the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, he states that the the Talysh nationalist movement in the republic of Azerbaijan and the main Pamiri party in Tajikistan are Sunni, when in fact they are Shia."
It should read:
"In a March 29, 2008 article, Taheri states that the the Shia Iranian Government supports Sunni groups such as Al Qaeda when it supports their purposes of damaging America and her interests. Taheri states that Iran supports of a number of Sunni groups, including the Afghan Hezbi Islami (Islamic Party), the Algerian Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, he includes the the Talysh nationalist movement in the republic of Azerbaijan and Pamiri party in Tajikistan as Sunni groups. The [ABC source] states that the Pamiri party are exclusively Shia and the [XYZ source] states that the Talysh people are predominately Shia."
The two problems, with even this revised version, is that Taheri never mentions the Pamiri party in Tajikistan and Clifton, et. al. state, "As mentioned above, there are distinct differences within the Talysh community between the lowlands and mountain areas. First, the population of the mountain areas is Sunni Muslim while the population of the lowlands is mostly Shiite."
Ursasapien (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the rest. Only a negligible part of Talysh in some mountaineous villages in Iran are Sunni, while the predominant majority of talysh in the plains of republic of Azerbaijan are Shia. He probably refers to Hummatov/Humbatov movement. Also he was shiite. You can read about his movement and his people oin UNPO.org. About the Pamiri: they are Ismaili. They are Shiites with 7 saints unlike the twelvers in Iran. I think no one wrote something to criticize Taheri, because it is not worth it. Usually bad articles do not get much critics.--Babakexorramdin (talk)

"I think no one wrote something to criticize Taheri, because it is not worth it. Usually bad articles do not get much critics." - This statement makes it appear like you are not interested in treating this individual from a neutral point of view. Ursasapien (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
about Tajikistan: it is indeed confusing. The main Pamiri party was "Lali Badakhshan" But it cooperated with the Rastakhiz (reneissance) party of the Gharmis. Gharmis were Sunnis but culturally close to Pamiris (who were Shia). In addition Iran supported the United opoosition fron (which contained both Shia and sunni) against the ex-communist rulers. I think this is a better idea to oppose Taheri than exclsuively debate on Pamiri. 10:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you interested in "opposing Taheri" or in writing an accurate, helpful, encyclopedic article that is comprehensive, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view? Ursasapien (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I answered your question above.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that I should say that It is more likely that Ankimai is trying very hard to support Amir Taheri. Having seen his edit records, it seems that this is based upon his grudges on another Iranian editor, with whom I accidentally agree on this issue, but I disagree upon other issues.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not completely clear, but if you are saying you wish to help create an accurate, helpful, encyclopedic article that is comprehensive, verifiable, and written from a neutral point of view, then I suggest you take my example above, replace [ABC source] and [XYZ source] with the appropriate sources/citations, and then post it on this talkpage. Other neutral editors will review it and the community will determine what we can use in the article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Sunni-Shiite terror network 2[edit]

In a 29 March 2008 article, Taheri states that the the Shia Iranian Government supports Sunni groups such as Al Qaeda. Under Sunni groups, Taheri mentiones the Talysh nationalist movement in the republic of Azerbaijan the Rastakhiz party in Tajikistan[1]. In fact the Talysh nationalist movement is a Shia-dominated group as the Talysh are predominantly Shia. [2] Rastakhiz (Islamic Renaissance Party) was incorported into the United Tajik Opposition (UTO) was an amalgam of nationalist and Islamist parties and movements. The war's greatest destruction and toll in civilian deaths was in the south, where Kuliabis and their allies conducted campaigns of "ethnic cleansing" against local residents of Gharmi and Pamiri origin. The height of hostilities occurred between 1992 and 1993 and pitted Kulyabi militias against an array of groups, including militants from the Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP) and ethnic minority Pamiris from Gorno-Badakhshan. In large part due to the foreign support they received, the Kulyabi militias were able to soundly defeat opposition forces and went on what has been described by Human Rights Watch as an ethnic cleansing campaign against Pamiris and Garmis.[3] The Pamiri People are Ismali Shiites.[4] In fact Iran does not support the Sunni movement of Tajikistan and is instead betting on a stabilized country linked to it by Persian culture. Iran Iran and Russia, the most important foreign powers in the country, had developed common interests and Iran needs to preserve its cooperative relationship with Russia. Especially after the rise to power in Afghanistan of the mainly Pashtun Islamic Movement of Taliban (Islamic students) with Pakistani and Saudi support, Russia, Iran, and Uzbekistan became even more alarmed about the situation there. All were in different ways aiding the non-Pashtun (Tajik, Uzbek, and Shia Hazara) forces resisting the Taliban in north Afghanistan. Iran and Russia also had similar interests in the Caspian Sea, in limiting Western involvement in Central Asia, and in increasing their leverage over Afghanistan.[5] The Taliban, Al Qaeda's ally, and are mortal enemies. Shi’ite Iran nearly went to war against the Taliban after the massacre of Afghan Shi’ites and nine Iranian diplomats in Mazar-e-Sharif in 1998. [6]

I wrote this. It took me so much time and I hope noone again delets this.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is an interesting history lesson, but what does it have to do with Taheri? This is a lot of writing to say that Taheri described two groups as Sunni that would better be described as a mix or predominately Shia. Additionally, you seem to miss the entire point of Taheri's article which is, it does not matter whether we are talking about Sunnis, Shi’ites, Alawites, or even Marxist atheist- when it comes to the destruction of the U.S. these groups will work together. Your paragraph only seems to reinforce this point. Don't you think it would be more helpful to find articles that specifically criticize Taheri. Ursasapien (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to find critical articles towards Taheri. However it is not my style to attack people personally. I only bring counter evidence without interpretations. An encyclopedia is mainly descriptive but it should contain relevant material and the sources and counterfacts I provided fit perfectly in that section that calls Amir Taheri a controversial writer. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not undone your edits and redone mine yet. I want to let you react but I strongly feel that you act very biased about this and try to protect this individual. I know that there is much politics involved in editings here, but the task of encyclopedians is to bring facts and counterfacts without any biases, what I did fits totally in that picture and I think you treat me very harshly. Nothing personal, but more my edits. I spent so much time on it--Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: that part on Tajik civil war clearly shows that Taheri's statements were groundless. It is obvious from there without any additions by me. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I truly did not intend to "treat you harshly" and I appreciate your volunteer effort. I do not feel I am "very" biased, but we are all somewhat biased. I encourage you to take a moment and examine where your own biases might fit into this. I want to work with you, however I think you need to overcome the following specific objections:
  • In the article, Taheri describes two groups as Sunni that would better be described as a mix or predominately Shia. However, he never indicates that they are exclusively Sunni and you have not shown that these groups are exclusively Shia.
  • No author from an independent, reliable source states that Taheri's description is inaccurate or controversial. You state this and that is the textbook definition of original research.
  • The criticsm seems to miss the point of Taheri's article (or rather reinforce the point) that, when it comes to terrorism, different groups will cooperate.
Ursasapien (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1- No Taheri says that these groups or better said political movements were Sunni, where as we see they are shia. No group is exclusively this or that. Yes Islamic Republic of Iran's population is not all shia, It has also Sunnis, Christians, jews etc... So why Taheri or other people call it a Shia entity? It is obvious and I think you get my point. It is just a matter of numbers. 2- It is no Original research, beacuse I do not come up with any conclusions. It is like this: Taheri says this. Facts are these, (judge yourself). 3- It does not matter at all. I am not criticizing taheris article I only bring facts which counter his "facts". Thats all. What I did is fair enough.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right and your arguments are convincing--Tirip (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tirip, can you explain what is convincing about Kamran's arguments? As far as I can tell, he has not provided a source (outside of himself) that states this article by Taheri is controversial. Nevertheless, I tried to edit the section correcting grammar, improving the foot notes with reference templates, and trying to improve the clarity of the section. I sincerely hope we are not at some impasse. Is my most recent edit an acceptable compromise? Ursasapien (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Babakexorramdin (=Kamran?) did not provide himself as a source, he provided many sources that all exposed how wrong Taheri was. What you do is to represent taheri's views. You say it is Grammar, but your content is opposite of Babakexorramdin. What babakexorramdin wrote was fair enough, I think you either are supporting Taheri or have something against babakexorramdin personally or a combination of both. --Tirip (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your style of writing seems identical to Babakexorramdin/Kamran. What I wrote seemed neutral to me. However, I will make smaller non-controversial changes. Then I will tag the section for neutrality, original research, and incoherence to bring wider attention to the article. I have no affiliation for Taheri and I have absolutely nothing against Kamran. I have the highest respect for Wikipedia and it's policies/guidelines. If you wish to write the article from a particular point of view, perhaps you should create an article at a different encyclopedia or wiki that approaches subjects from your point of view. Ursasapien (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Taheri, Amir (March 29, 2008). "The Sunni-Shiite Terror Network". The Wall Street Journal. New York City: Dow Jones & Company. pp. A9. Retrieved 2008-05-14. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ http://www.unpo.org/content/view/7921/147/
  3. ^ http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/eca/tajikbkg1005.htm
  4. ^ Islamic Renaissance Party
  5. ^ http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/regional/rubinintro.html
  6. ^ http://adereview.com/blog/?p=53

thank you for your cooperation[edit]

I want to thank Ursasapien for his cooperation. As for Tirip: He has profound knowledge about the Shia and especially the Alevi groups. It is not my job to reveal his idenitity and I think it is against the Wikipedia's rules. One more thing is that you wrote that Taheri calls the Alawite -led Syrian Government a Sunni entity. Again very wrong. Alawite/ Alawi, Alevi, Alevit etc... are Shia, however Syria is a predominantly Sunni country.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to quote Taheri. I did not mean to imply that the Alawite were Sunni, only that (according to Taheri) divisions within Islam are unimportant to those that wish to advance an anti-Western/anti-U.S. agenda. He wrote specifically, "The Syrian regime is Iran's closest ally, despite the fact that Iranian mullahs regard the Alawite minority that dominates it as heretics or worse." Ursasapien (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that these are Amir Taheri's words, but also this shows his level of intelligence. Not my job to criticize him by the way. Alawites/ Alevits are Shiites. Moreover I think you should have not deleted that part about Iran being mortal enemy to taliban. IRI like any other governments pursues its interest and might chose alliances with others. But one thing is for sure that Sunnis are hostile to Shias. This is obvious everywhere, in Iran, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon and notably in Iraq. So this article might seem jost another minor blunder of his,in the light of other blunders of Amir Taheri. His level of intelligence is yet an issue that does not help him.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence I removed did not make sense in English. It did not say, "Iran is the mortal enemy of the Taliban" (although I still think you would need a source for that statement). It said, "The Taliban, Al Qaeda's ally, and are mortal enemies." This does not make sense. Ursasapien (talk) 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the sentence was grammatically not correct, but it did day that Taliban and Alqaeda are Iran's mortal enemies.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sunni-Shiite terror network 3[edit]

I have removed this section because I didn't understand how the claim was controversial. It just gave a history of some conflicts and said one group labelled as Sunni was Shia - or some such. Much of it seemed irrelevant. Perhaps if someone wants to have the subject discussed they could identify better what exactly the problem was? Getting Sunni and Shia wrong is hardly a point of controversy that warrants mention here. John Smith's (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section[edit]

After perusing BLP, my understanding is that the article as a whole has to be "balanced" and it would seem that one relatively minor incident, the Iranian sumptuary law, and one hit piece from The Nation magazine should comprise nearly 2/3rds of the article. Pecker Checker (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, this is a hatchet job of remarkable dimension. --tickle me 01:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Amir Taheri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amir Taheri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Amir Taheri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amir Taheri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Taheri--a 'Conspiracy Theorist'[edit]

Such drivel. Probably the most erudite Iranian expatriate writing today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.226.6 (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About controversy[edit]

So basically according to this section, this guy is definitely a fraud, but at the same time his worthless testimony has been used to discredit Seymour Hersh, shame on! 2607:FEA8:1C20:6E:8186:896A:D44E:72C3 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About controversy[edit]

"Taheri's PR agent Eliana Benador defended his story. "Benador explained that, when it comes to Iran, accuracy is 'a luxury...As much as being accurate is important, in the end it's important to side with what's right. What's wrong is siding with the terrorists.'"[2]"

According to this quote in the article, Taheri's agent totally lacks moral compass, embarrassing! 2607:FEA8:1C20:6E:8186:896A:D44E:72C3 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amir_Taheri&oldid=1208877560"