Talk:Amir Taheri/Archive 1

Focus

• What universities did he attend and what degrees did he recieve?
• Can we put all his various positions into a coherent timeline? As it is now, its just a hodgepodge of publications he has written for at various times.
• Can we find references for the majority of the claims made? Right now one is being asked to take them on faith.
• I recommend we separate out his career from his education background.
• It would be cool to mention when he was born.

I hope this helps focus the article. --Ben Houston 03:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Claims

Up to now, his recent claim in national post on May 19 is proven to be totally false. It would be great to mention it. I hope this clarifies the issue. Pezhman (talk · contribs) 22:07, May 20, 2006 (UTC)

The veracity of his claims of May 19 has already been addressed at the main article 2006 Iranian sumptuary law, which is the best place for it. JFD 05:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

His false claim with removed link by National Post was added to the external links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.199.69.153 (talk • contribs) 19:44, May 21, 2006 (UTC).

There were two pieces on dress code in the May 19 National Post, one by Taheri, the other by Chris Wattie:

"However, National Post retraction may itself contain an error. The retraction, written by Chris Wattie, blames Taheri for the article, but copies of the original on other sites credit the article to Chris Wattie."

The one by Wattie was withdrawn and replaced with another article, also by Wattie, calling the original claims into question. JFD|JFD 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The article reads like a promotional piece authored by the subject or his agent. Consider the first part of this sentence, for example: "Mr. Taheri's public speaking engagements are arranged by Benador Associates, a public relations firm with a predominantly neoconservative clientele." Also, the various accomplishments claimed are not supported by the citations. The article should be cut down to the few publicly-known facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.155.145.57 (talk • contribs) 22:10, June 2, 2006 (UTC).

Claims that he made false claims are slanderous when one of the National Post articles states:

"The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect."

If the information is wrong that is one thing but he seems to have had every reason to believe it was true when he wrote the commentary. Why is he being portrayed as a liar? Apple Rancher (talk · contribs) 14:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

because he didn't have "any" reason to believe it was real, he basically quoted completely unreliable sources. Anybody who carries the title “journalist” should at least put minimum effort in his/her work to see if the source of news is reliable, unless reliability is a non-issue and the goal is to create tension! Kraf001 (talk · contribs) 08:46, June 17 2007 (UTC)

The infamous article of Taheri in National Post (May 2006) that contained his untrue allegations concerning the dress code is not accessible through the hot link. This needs to be restored, as it was authored by him, published in a national newspaper and widely distributed and cited in other media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.223.226.209 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC).

Removed "Islamophobia" section

I just removed the following since it is totally uncited and fairly strong accusation. "Amir Taheri's writings relating to Islam and Muslims have shown a consistent Islamophobia. An example would be an article published in the British non-tabloid press in 2005 that suggested that all Muslim men in the west who chose to wear a beard and all Muslim women who donned the hijab were effectively symbols of terrorism. Whilst this view may find supporters amongst the neoconservatives and the far right it greatly reduces the credibility of both Amir Taheri and Benador. "

--Ben Houston 19:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Taheir is still on the speaker's list of Benador Associates. [1]. --John Nagle 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

The infamous article of Taheri in National Post (May 2006) that contained his untrue allegations concerning the dress code is not accessible through the hot link. This needs to be restored, as it was authored by him, published in a national newspaper and widely distributed and cited in other media. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.223.226.209 (talk • contribs) 17:51, September 3, 2006 (UTC).

"This is a bit confusing and raises a very important question. Who had placed that item that Ben Houston decided to remove it? Ben's logic for doing what he has done is that "it greatly reduces the credibility of both Amir Taheri and Benador. Is Wikipedia's primary mission to give credibilty to those who have failed to earn it? Cyrus, 14:00, Sept. 3, 2006" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.223.226.209 (talk • contribs) 17:51, September 3, 2006 (UTC).

WARNING TO READERS AND EDITORS: The quotation from Ben Houston that I had included in my commentary on questioning the legitimacy of Ben's act of deleting the item on "Islamophobia" came directly from a text that he himself had signed his name next to it and had dated it 26 July 2006. Some two hours after I had added that commentary, I reconnected to this page. I was shocked to note that that portion of Ben's comments that I had electronically copied and pasted inside two quotation marks has completely vanished from the body of comments made by him on July 26, though the date of his last input still remains 19:05, 26 July 2006!!

WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? Are there any rules and disciplines for maintaining the continuity and the link between comments that various dicussants add over time? Cyrus 14:32, Sept. 3, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.226.209 (talk • contribs) 20:36, September 3, 2006 (UTC)

What "has been alleged"

@ 68.5.250.146 (talk · contribs) and 75.31.17.56 (talk · contribs)

If something "has been alleged", please verify that it has. Check here what "verify" means. Check Wikipedia's rules on biographies on living persons, too. Note that biographical articles quite often have a section "controversies". Please do not change the headline into "controversies about [whatever]". A plain "controversies" is sufficient. Put what has been alleged there. Give sources. If something raises your suspicion - e.g. you doubt whether it is verifiable, because "details ... are not provided" -, make use of the fact tag. Do not assess it as "suspicious" (or other statements as "credible"), please. Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. --Ankimai 01:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

@Ankimai,

Statements indicating that allegations have been made about a certain topic or person are very common on Wikipedia. Moreover, it is more than within the right of Wiki-editors to characterize certain factual matters as "credible" or "suspicious." Now, if the terms "credible" and "suspicious" are too loaded for your tastes, fine, delete the words "credible" and "suspicious," but don't delete/revert the entire entry. In addition, the older versions of the topic, to which you blindly revert, are full of such conclusory, loaded, un-neutral words as well.

Besides that, I may have regarded your criticisms as more credible if you hadn't gone and reverted each and every single edit that the particular user with whom you disagreed made on wikipedia, even outside of this topic. Given your conduct in this regard, your calls for absolutely pure "neutrality" seems more like disengenuous posturing than an authentic desire to further the cause of objectivity on wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.110.97 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 February 2007

The taped interview with Taheri does not even address the subjects you raise. SourceWatch does not comply with our definition of a reliable source. You will have to accept the Wikipedia concept of verifiability, otherwise your edits won’t last. Wikipedia won’t adapt to you, you will have to adapt to Wikipedia. --Ankimai 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

unbearble

I read all the publications if Amir Taheri in New York Post and never take any of it seriously. All I can say that he is full of hatred towards his country. I am even skeptical that he is Persian. Most possibile he is an Irani Jew who is supported by Israel. He is just unbearble. --armenianNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 13 February 2007

→ In re post above:

• Removed 19:02, February 19, 2007 (UTC) by 75.41.218.170 (talk · contribs).

• Restored 07:21, February 20, 2007 (UTC).

• Changed 00:00, March 3, 2007 (UTC) by ArmenianNY (talk · contribs).

This might be a spoof of anti-semitism, but I think it's the real thing. (BTW, I added the heading to put this in a section of its own.) CWC(talk) 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any anti-semitism here. If the guy gives lectures in New York synagogues and knocks down his country every single minute, using every opportunity in such influential newspapers as New York Post, then one can state that his interests are not only personal. You can not find any intellectual person among neoconservatives in New York Post. Michelle Malkin, Andrea Peyser, Deborah Orin (may her rest in peace, although I know she is rotting in hell)and other essayists are the ones who make a great company for Amir Taheri. This guy has no mind at all. I agree that Iran's regime is wrong, but the regime of Shah that Amir Taheri is longing for, because he owned Keyhan during that regime was not any better and Islamic Revolution was justified. Look at how they introduce Amir Taheri in both this article and in New York Post. "Based in Europe memeber of Benador Associates". Is Europe that small? Is that a small town? Why don't they say based in the world journalist. Or may be he is having a breakfast in London with Christian Amanpour and James Rubin, eating lunch in Jerusalem, and having some lectures and dinner with anti Irani Jews in Forest Hills, New York in between emailing his full of hatred articles to New York Post. Isn't this stupid? How can you saysomebody is based in Europe or Asia or Africa? -- armenianNY (talk · contribs) 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

another new controversy

This article has been protected for a month, and I think its time to unprotect. So that these should be added:

A new controversy regarding Taheri: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070428/wl_nm/iran_nuclear_olmert_dc_3;_ylt=Aro0gWDmzFvCIt7fYyeLS6JSw60A

Also these two points were removed during last edit wars:

1988 Nest of Spies book

Shaul Bakhash of George Mason University has accused Amir Taheri of concocting nonexistent substances in his writings, and states that he "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist. Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there." Bakhash has stated that Taheri's Nest of Spies is "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name."

2005 Javad Zarif accusations

Dwight Simpson of San Francisco State University and Kaveh Afrasiabi accuse Taheri and his publisher Eleana Benador of fabricating false stories in the New York Post in 2005 where Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador Javad Zarif as one of the students involved in the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. Zarif was Simpson's teaching assistant and a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University at the time.

--Gerash77 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Declined You didn't specify what text you wanted to add for the new source. Additionally, your other proposed editsions were very much the subject of the previous edit war and I see no attempts to resolve the dispute in the interim. If you think the dispute has been resolved, explain why in a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. —dgies^t_c 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another article retraction (April 2007)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3393010,00.html http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1177591149988&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull Someone should add this to the article. --64.230.121.19 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

taheri babble

It just shows how wikipedia cannot be a neutral source. I cleaned up the amir taheri article removed all the COI garbage last night, removing inflammatory and unproven things only sourced from one editorial commentary in a socialist left magazine (Nation's own reflection of itself). an editorial is the basis for half the entry! there are no newspaper or other media sourcings that are independent.The only thing that is referenced to online is an editorial. So I cleaned up the language to make it neutal and removed the unproven iranian controversy BUT left in the other links to the editorial so that someone who is a member and wants to make this entry neutral can organize it and use the link to the editorial in the appropriate way - perhaps mentioning the controversy is only noted in this editorial but no sources exist. Howver this evening, the page was the same as it was preedit.

With the inflammatory language and unsourced and unverified material back in the piece. even the first paragraph, saying he's supported by neocon clientelle is unproven and inflammatory. Since when is the gulf news, the la times, the ny times neocon?

I doubt the original writer even knows what neocon means, and the source is to http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2826, a liberal/leftist website whose aim is to sell chomsky books and warn the left about the "dangerous" right wing. Not an appropriate source. In essence, the whole page for Taheri is filled with linkage to left/socialist websites and unsourced editorials. Hardly the standards wikipedia claims to have.

Amir Taheri - SourceWatch is another link for sourcing, and it's another liberal/left site = not media. simply opinion and inflammatory commentary about those they do not like.

appropriate sources should include things like this: http://www.secularislam.org/blog/post/summit/3/Speakers that he was a speaker for a secular islam summit. His speaking events are few but in different sorts of venues from what I have been able to find. However. using neocon clientele only furthers the case that the individual who re-edited what I had neutrally altered, does have a COI, against alledged jewish and non-liberal sources. As he/she/it has substituted neocon clientelle for an imaginary Jewish tilt. The only place that he has spoken that has any kind of non-neutral setting, in terms of religion or politics has been a Jewish Sephardic (Spanish/Arabic Jews) Synagogue in New York City. The rest of the events from what I see have been at neutral places such as rented office spaces and law offices. So to claim there is a bent to who is reading and hearing Mr. Taheri is patently aburd (unless the re-editor is claiming that only neocons ( Jews) read, watch, the LAtimes, NY Post, CSpan, CNN, the Gulf News, the Arabic Press, etc.

Until articles such as sthis are put into a neutral context.. Wikipedia will always carry with it, it's titled of being biased and leftist - unless it can reign in those who are taking and editing every article to have a non-neutral and leftist slant.

In a word, this article contains links to sourcewatch and other left, non-neutral wikis and commentary websites. None have sources or validation by media sources. Therefore, either get proper linkage, or get rid of the crap COI leftist sites with no source and no purpose except to slander and/or libel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.249.25.199 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

There should be compromise langauge here which describes controvery

There should be compromise langauge here which describes the divergent views regarding Taheri. He is a controversial figure and has made incorrect statements in his columns on numerous occasions. You can't just ignore and whitewash the controversial nature of this author. It must be described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.35.241 (talk • contribs)

edit warring

As an editor of Iranian articles, I didn't know this person is such a controversial figure, otherwise I wouldn't have asked for article's unlocking. I hadn't heard of this person before recent controversies and searching for this name in Persian, results in a weblog by an Iranian artist [2], some articles in English, and some small editorials about his lack of credibility [3], showing anonymousness of this person among Iranians. Why is he so controversial on English wikipedia is beyond me...

In any case, would it possibly be acceptable for all parties to discuss the issues here, instead of edit warring?--Gerash77 02:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

described but sourced

So you say these things happen. Prove it. By sourcing appropriate not POV sources that cannot be verified beyond themselves. They are not appropriate sources and have no other sourcing. THerefore how can you say these things happen if they have no neutral source saying so? Prove they happened! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.25.199 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 May 2007

Controversies don't exist

again, some went back to previous edit and added a controversy that has only been listed in a letter in the Nation. No other source or confirmation, except a LETTER in a socialist magazine. Hardly appropriate sourcing. in fact WIkipedia's own page on Zarif, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Javad_Zarif, doesn't even mention the controversy. ALl the links enclosed (about 90% of the ones in the Taheri article, are inappropriate POV left BLOGS or socialist OP-EDs/Letters) and should be removed. By leaving this unfactual tripe, you're just proving that wikipedia, has a extremely tilted left-leaning political slant, and no matter what, cannot be neutral. No matter how many times people try to make articles like these neutral, people insist on putting back in unproved, unsource allegations for facts, and then blocking the pages from being edited, so those slanderous comments stand as fact. It's no wonder why my professors or editor (of a large city paper for which I write) refuse allow Wikipedia to be used for any sourcing or referencing. Op-eds and blog posts by partisan hacks are hardly good sources.

^ a b c Larry Cohler-Esses, Bunkum From Benador, The Nation, posted June 14, 2006 (July 3, 2006 issue). Accessed online 21 September 2006. ^ [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.25.199 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 May 2007

Amir Taheri is a living person

Amir Taheri is a living person, so Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to this article.

There are other policies that apply to every Wikipedia article: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V.

Some editors keep reverting to a version that violates all of these policies.

Please stop! (If you keep ignoring warnings like this, you will be blocked from editing here.)

On the other hand, we welcome content that meets our rules, whether it supports or criticizes the subjects of articles. If you're unsure about something, you can always discuss it on this page first. Best wishes, CWC 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

@ 68.5.250.146, Nyisnotbad et al.

You have been asked to familiarise yourself with the rules, but you keep ignoring them. Blogs should never be used [as a source], unless written or published by the subject. You have been asked not to delete book titles and ISBNs, but you have deleted them about thirty times since then. You could have noticed by yourself that the footnotes you placed don't look like the footnotes placed by others, and you could have found out that we have a Manual of Style here, too - but you didn't. You don't seem to care. I'm afraid you will have to, though. --Ankimai 00:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing legitimate criticism of Taheri

There should be compromise language which addresses the legitimate criticisms that many have made regarding Taheri's journalistic integrity. There are already links to several sources corroborating claims that Taheri's journalism is of a dubious nature.

Any deletion of ISBN's has been unintentional.

Please offer an edit of the existing language which describes the criticisms of Taheri. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyisnotbad (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 August 2007

I have read the article numerous times and it clearly lays out the controversy/criticism of this person. This article seems to present both sides fairly well. Can you point to specific language you find POV or otherwise objectionable? Ursasapien (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I put the article that User:Nyisnotbad wishes to revert to here and left some ideas to move forward here. I think, if we all work on this collaboratively in his user space, we will be able to find the compromise necessary to avoid further lame edit wars. Ursasapien (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

The problem with blogs are that they are "self-published" sources and are, therefore, unreliable because there is no editorial oversight or fact-checking. Now, having combed over Ms. Marsh's blog, she does evidence a great deal of careful fact-checking. Though she is clearly partisan, her site seems to be a reliable source to me (in the same way Drudge's site might be). However, if you read her article carefully, she does not assert that Taheri completely made up the story about non-Muslims being forced to wear external identification. She seems to be saying that Taheri misinterpreted and then misrepresented the legislation. Her article goes on to say that Taheri wasn't the only one that had misinterpreted this legislation. The Simon Wiesenthal Center was also convinced that this legislation was headed for ratification. The story is dissected in detail later in the article, but I have seen nothing that states with certainty, "Taheri knew that this was just a discussion in the Iranian parliment but he decided to make up a story that it was being passed into law so he could further his agenda." This article already contains a great deal of negative information about Taheri. We don't have to mine the blogs to come up with more negative information. Ursasapien (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Big doubts about the level of knowledge of Amir Taheri.

Appart from many unverifiable accuastions towrads many governments and political parties also the knowledge of Taheri about the realities is questanable. He in a 29 March 2008 article states that two Shia entities, i.e. the main Pamiri party in Tajikistan and the Talysh nationalist movement in the republic of Azerbaijan, are sunni! [4]--Babakexorramdin (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

While what you're saying is true, I don't think you can put it in the article, until a third-party source has commented on it. Otherwise, it would constitute original research. --CreazySuit (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I highlighted the Pamiri and Talysh. Maybe we can contrast these two? Or just say that teheri calls Talysh and Pamiri as Sunni (source) while they are Shia (source)?