Saucysalsa30 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Saucysalsa30 (talk | contribs) |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:Finally, while Saucysalsa30's claims of [[WP:OR]] and poor sourcing do not appear to be valid, his own edits are rife with original research and misuse of sources: Consider {{tq|"However, the claim of hoping to annex Khuzestan is contradicted by Saddam calling for a renewed diplomacy and successive ceasefire offers, one of which came in the first two weeks of the war, which [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] refused."}} That edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=950014667 diff]) uses an October 1980 ''Washington Post'' article stating only that {{tq|"Iraqi Foreign Minister Saadoun Hammadi, at the United Nations in New York, renewed President Saddam Hussein's offer earlier this week for a four-day cease-fire in place that he said Iraq would honor as long as Iran did not fire on its troops. That possibility seemed negligible, to say the least, given the toe-to-toe fighting going on for the past 48 hours in Khorramshahr as well as several other places inside Iran's borders."}} to call into question the numerous highly-respected sources repeating the (virtually universally-accepted) fact that Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan, despite ''The Washington Post'' <u>not saying anything of the kind</u> and such an interpretation being pure OR on Saucysalsa30's part. (In fact, ''The Washington Post''{{'}}s coverage makes clear that the four-day ceasefire was not a serious offer as Iraq continued to occupy Iranian territory!) In sum, if you ever needed a textbook example of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing, look no further than the walls of text above.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 12:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
:Finally, while Saucysalsa30's claims of [[WP:OR]] and poor sourcing do not appear to be valid, his own edits are rife with original research and misuse of sources: Consider {{tq|"However, the claim of hoping to annex Khuzestan is contradicted by Saddam calling for a renewed diplomacy and successive ceasefire offers, one of which came in the first two weeks of the war, which [[Ayatollah Khomeini]] refused."}} That edit ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iraqi_invasion_of_Iran&diff=next&oldid=950014667 diff]) uses an October 1980 ''Washington Post'' article stating only that {{tq|"Iraqi Foreign Minister Saadoun Hammadi, at the United Nations in New York, renewed President Saddam Hussein's offer earlier this week for a four-day cease-fire in place that he said Iraq would honor as long as Iran did not fire on its troops. That possibility seemed negligible, to say the least, given the toe-to-toe fighting going on for the past 48 hours in Khorramshahr as well as several other places inside Iran's borders."}} to call into question the numerous highly-respected sources repeating the (virtually universally-accepted) fact that Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan, despite ''The Washington Post'' <u>not saying anything of the kind</u> and such an interpretation being pure OR on Saucysalsa30's part. (In fact, ''The Washington Post''{{'}}s coverage makes clear that the four-day ceasefire was not a serious offer as Iraq continued to occupy Iranian territory!) In sum, if you ever needed a textbook example of [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] editing, look no further than the walls of text above.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 12:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
||
:: I've literally pointed out cases where sources were completely misquoted and failed verification, and your response is a series of personal attacks? Ironic coming from someone heavily invested in curating a very one-sided narrative and even using user-generated blogs as sources. |
:: I've literally pointed out cases where sources were completely misquoted and failed verification, and your response is a series of personal attacks? Ironic coming from someone heavily invested in curating a very one-sided narrative and even using user-generated blogs as sources. There's even content on the article that does not even exist in the cited sources. Textbook definition of failed verification, and you defend that? The fact you choose to ignore addressing and even defend very obvious failed verification, original research, POV, bad sourcing, and a host of other issues, and instead delve in a serious of personal attacks is proof that you should be taken with a grain of salt, if not less. |
||
:: This part in your driveling response was funny though. ''"in fact, had allowed Iraq to unilaterally abrogate the [[1975 Algiers Agreement]] without taking any real response".'' Is that why Iran abrogated the treaty on 14 September, 3 days before Iraq did, in a couple of the very sources already existing in this Wiki article? That was actually included in the fixing up of the article if you had bothered to read it. It's very obvious you push a one-sided, pseudo-true narrative on this and other pages, and of course this is further proof you should be taken with a grain of salt. |
|||
:: Are you actually claiming that Washington Post is an unreliable source? So you nitpick and distort reliable sourcing by world-renowned publications, but then you use personal blog pages as "reliable sources"? That's very bizarre. |
|||
:: You also did not address anything other than one thing, really. Seems like some a very selective (and self-defeating) argument. Nitpicking one thing and a barrage of personal attacks, and including how you're getting things wrong along with your own personal conjecture is a very poor defense of your position. So why is it you defend blatant original research, failed verification, textbook examples of terrible sourcing, and engage in childish attacks? |
|||
:: Unfortunately, TheTimesAreAChanging has been engaged for years in creating very one-sided narratives in this and related Wiki articles, even defending the use of blog websites as sources and the original research on the article (for example, the Wikipedia article's content from Karsh directly contradicts what the book actually says). [[User:Saucysalsa30|Saucysalsa30]] ([[User talk:Saucysalsa30|talk]]) 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:46, 28 November 2020
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because... (your reason here) --Seyyed(t-c) 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- OK. There is a too long template on the Iran-Iraq war. Thus I want to shorten it by making a new article. Please, let me to improve the new article. --Seyyed(t-c) 20:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- It's fine to split long articles into shorter ones like this, but please make sure you follow WP:CWW when copying content from one article to another. I've taken care of this one for you. Hut 8.5 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Iraq Invasion of Iran (1980)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Farrokh 03":
- From Battle of Mehran: Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War: 1500-1988.
- From Tawakalna ala Allah Operations: Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War: 1500-1988. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 9781780962214.
- From Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran: Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War: 1500-1988.
- From Operation Mersad: Farrokh, Kaveh. Iran at War: 1500–1988. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78096-221-4.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iraqi invasion of Iran (1980). 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201227/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029201227/http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf to http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents/PF-Iran-Iraq.pdf
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 10:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 14 January 2020
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Iraqi invasion of Iran (1980) → Iraqi invasion of Iran – Already redirects there. Unreal7 (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose "Already redirects here" is no reason. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes it is. It's unnecessary dab. Unreal7 (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Support - unnecessary disambiguation.--Staberinde (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
User-generated content sites/blogs are not a reliable source. Stop claiming that it is.
To start off a series to address a number of issues plaguing this article (and related ones) including multiple instances of failed verification, original research, unsubstantiated claims, a clear disregard for NPOV, the first is the use of a user-generated content blog-style site as a source. http://www.iranchamber.com/history/iran_iraq_war/iran_iraq_war1.php . It's about page even admits to being as such http://www.iranchamber.com/about_us/about_us.php
Using this website as a source is a textbook definition of what is not WP:RS, and instead is WP:UGC. Defending such a source would be in direct contradiction to WP:RS, and further push the lack of evident NPOV and seeming WP:ADVOCACY expressed on this and other pages.
The defense provided thus far is hopelessly erroneous, that because such a source has been long-standing, it should be valid. Rather, all that means is this page does not get much traffic and/or no one has taken the time to look into sources, and that particular users watch the page to engage in reverts to continue including such a source.
Further, neither this "source" nor the short German-language Damals article speak on using the Islamic Revolution as pretext to invade, and the Damals article does not really comment on seeing an opportunity to attack due to the state of Iran's army and the Islamic revolution as a pretext. Simply failed verification regarding the Damals article. It's odd why it is included, especially since the Wiki article content preceding it is drawn from the Chamber Society blog. Also, an article in a small popular-science magazine is questionable and unreliable as a source at best, not including that popsci's value is geared towards the entertainment aspect rather than academic to start with.
Proposed Resolution: Textbook example of non-RS, POV, failed verification. Such sources simply do not belong on Wikipedia and should be removed. The Iranian UGC website's evident bias is expected, though that's another matter.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Original research citing Karsh, and conjecture with citation to Farrokh
Karsh makes it clear that Iraq was not planning to take over and annex the Khuzestan province and how Iraq had limited objective and how that actually turned out to be disastrous for them. How the article cites Karsh as it being a plan to annex Khuzestan is clear original research and POV. Recall that Iraq ceded part of the Shatt al-Arab in the 1975 Algiers Agreement, which previously all belonged to Iraq, to Iran's Khuzestan province. To this point, Karsh writes, "Nor did Saddam's territorial aims go beyond the Shatt al-Arab and a small portion of the southern region of Khuzestan". Around this, Karsh goes into detail on the limited nature of Iraq's objectives, and how it turned out to backfire by not going further. How aiming for a small sliver of territory ceded in a treaty that on 14 Sept 1980 Iran abrogated (which Karsh and other writers and journalists note and oddly missing from this article; again more NPOV) gets transformed into "annexing Khuzestan" (the whole province) is an original research stretch on the part of a past editor.
Proposed Resolution: Karsh's point must be more clearly explained, without any such original research.
This first half line in the Wiki article is simply conjecture: "Saddam's primary interest in war may have stemmed from his desire to right the supposed "wrong" of the Algiers Agreement, in addition to finally achieving his desire of annexing Khuzestan and becoming the regional superpower."
So the Wiki editor is simply assuming it may have been a primary interest. Why is an editor's personal assumptions allowable content?
Farrokh says nothing about becoming a regional superpower or similar verbiage (in fact, it refers to the Shah's Iran as a "mini-superpower"). Speaking of conjecture, regarding Khuzistan, Farrokh himself writes in terms of "would-haves", e.g. "Annexing Khuzistan would greatly expand Iraq’s coastline". In a book full of citations, there's also no citation here. The only citation regarding matters between Iraq and Khuzistan is on a sentence about Iranian allegations: "Some Iranian sources claim that the US encouraged Saddam Hussein to invade Iran and annex Khuzistan".
So we have conjecture and a passing mention "some Iranian sources" to support a Wikipedia article sentence that itself delves into conjecture, whereas we get much more from Karsh, Razoux, etc.
Proposed Resolution: Wiki articles should have not have editor's conjecture (original research) and better sources with more discussion on this matter exist such as Karsh as previously discussed, Razoux, etc. These should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
A 4-sentence angry personal opinion blog post is not RS, plus failed verification
The fact such a thing, and titled "Let's deport the Iran Embassy siege survivor to Iraq", is used as a source to claim Iraq was behind the London Iranian embassy attack is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. The other source, the SAS book, points to page 7, yet no mention of Iraq is found except to say that the SAS has been involved in Iraq. Simply a case of failed verification.
To address another point made not relevant to this article, one of the users engaged in edit warring falsely claimed that the Iranian_Embassy_siege page links an article that directly implicates Iraq. In reality, all the BBC article says is a vague: "there were allegations that it was backed by Iran's regional rival, Iraq", and nothing more. Who were the allegations by? What were they specifically regarding? Was the backing that the terrorists simply happen to pay off some customs office to get passports? As an analogy, there have also been countless allegations worldwide with substantial "evidence" that 9/11 was committed by the US, Saudi, and/or Israeli governments. Allegations without basis don't go very far. Also, this user was using Wikipedia as a source as the reasoning for that revert.
Proposed Resolution: This sort of activity really diminishes the seriousness, RS, and NPOV of the article and doesn't belong here. Not sure if this content and the blog post were originally added as a joke. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Original research and failed verification on obscure, defunct Tehran-based website and on BBC article in "Prelude"
The first source https://web.archive.org/web/20140427083811/http://en.merc.ir/default.aspx?tabid=98&ArticleId=272 says nothing about 70,000 people being expelled. This is failed verification. The claim about increasing tensions is from Hashemi Rafsanjani, the 4th president of Iran, in an evident propaganda statement that would be expected from any leader of a nation.
Also, the site itself belonged to a small, defunct Tehran-based think tank, and the article was a republishing of interviews with several Iranian regime members from other local sources. Rather contrary to the spirit of RS.
The second source from BBC doesn't back up the content. It says nothing about people having little to no ties to Iran. It is also in contradiction to Rafsanjani's statement regarding "forcing the Iraqis of Iranian descent to leave that country and settle in Iran". This seems like a WP:SYNTH gone wrong. The source also has numerous inaccuracies contrary to mainstream research, such as claiming there to be 650,000 Christians in Iraq (article is from Feb 2003) when the verifiable consensus was 1.5 million.
Proposed Resolution: Violations of RS, NPOV, SYNTH, original research, and failed verification. Ideally, this should be fixed up, but the numerous issues with these two sources and the particular Wiki article content they are placed on are such that it is not really recoverable. With enough time without such a resolution, the path would be to remove it to improve the RS, NPOV, and general quality of this article.
The substantial POV, non-RS, original research, failed verification, etc. endemic in this and related Wiki articles, and the fragile but persistent defense of such violations, has produced a series of one-sided and half-true narratives that, coincidentally or not, unsurprisingly are in defense of an existing regime that is famous for its active media platform disinformation operations and do little to mask WP:ADVOCACY. That these articles have been carefully curated for years by the same handful of particular users including in the last day is not a positive image, either. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
A questionable source with exceptional claims not backed up or discussed in any detail, just passing mention, and directly contradicting its "Further Reading" reference
"World Conflicts: A Comprehensive Guide to World Strife Since 1945" is intriguing for a number of reasons.
First, this statement in the Wiki article is original research. From the Wiki article: "In addition, Khuzestan's large ethnic Arab population would allow Saddam to pose as a liberator for Arabs from Persian rule." It isn't in the source. The source just mentions that it was an "Arabic-speaking province to the east of Mesopotamia". This already makes it suspicious as to why this source is used when it fails verification on this so readily.
Secondly, the citation in the Wiki article is wrong as the 1989 first edition was published by Vintage under the title "The Fighting Never Stopped". The choice of publisher is interesting as Vintage is known for publishing literary classics (Hemingway for example) and nothing to indicate their editorial review process. Vintage is a subsidiary of Penguin, so it's possible Brogan may have been passed up by Penguin before publishing the original edition. Subsequent editions are published by Scarecrow, which is a small-time publisher and subsidiary of Rowman & Littlefield. In terms of the "reputation" perspective of reliable sourcing, it's iffy at best.
Thirdly, Brogan makes some exceptional and unverifiable claims. While he mentions the well-established Iraqi goal reclaiming the Shatt, he also claims Iraq had the goal of overthrowing Khomeini and annexing Khuzestan. No other discussion or coverage is made on this other than the following: "Iraq was the only Arab power capable of defeating Iran and protecting the Sunni regimes in the Gulf from revolutionary Shiite fundamentalism, and the emir of Kuwait and the king of Saudi Arabia pledged their support of Saddam's ambitions. He had hoped not merely to overthrow Khomeini and recover the whole Shatt, but to annex Khuzestan, Iran's Arabic-speaking province to the east of Mesopotamia, where a large part of Iran's oil reserves are to be found." A number of issues exist in this statement: - It is true and verifiable that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia supported Iraq during the war, but the claim of a conspiracy and agreement between the 3 nations before the war to support Iraq and attack Iran is novel. - The presumption Iraq fought in part to protect Sunni regimes in the Gulf is also strange. It may have been a consequence of the war, but was not an Iraqi objective. - The claims of Iraqi objectives to overthrow Khomeini and annex the whole of Khuzestan are equally a product of presumption and poor research. Undue weight and WP:REDFLAG certainly come to mind here. It's also the only reference to Khuzestan in the book.
Fourthly, the book has no inline citations, but has a "Further Reading" section at the end of each chapter. The pre-war Saudi-Kuwaiti-Iraqi conspiracy and overthrowing Khomeini are absent. Curious as where the "annexation" claim derived from, I could find it just in Kanan Makiya's (pseudonym Samir Al-Khalil) "Republic of Fear", which makes only passing mention and which itself claims to being unreliable, admitting to contain "stories and rumours" with "no firmer basis in fact". Strangely, the only reference in the "Further Reading" section focused on the Iran-Iraq War, Majid Khadduri's "The Gulf War: The Origins and Implications of the Iraq-Iran Conflict" contradicts such claims of annexation and overthrowing Khomeini by unspecified and unknown means.
Fifthly, other WP:RS criteria has issues. For example, context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." This book is a catch-all of conflicts since 1945. Out of ~700 pages, it dedicates only 4.5 to the Iran-Iraq War. The part about annexing Khuzestan is a passing mention embedded within other exceptional claims not really supported in academia on the topic. As mentioned, it is bizarre that the only "Further Reading" reference focused on the Iran-Iraq War contradicts Brogan's claim. Further, age matters too according to WP:RS. This book is from 1989. There has been lots of newer scholarship additionally focused on the war such as Karsh, Razoux, etc. and are not obscure works such as Brogan's.
As a final note, it may be displeasing to the POV narrative of particular users here that Brogan refers to the war as an Iraqi victory and spends almost 2 pages on that topic alone.
Proposed Resolution: WP:RS issues, mis-citation, NPOV/Undue weight, WP:REDFLAG, original research, trivial mention, and other potential issues, especially in light of better sources available, make this a strange choice to use for a source. Either it should be kept as an aside of an alternative view, or more likely removed as considerably more reliable and topic-focused sources exist that go into more detail than a trivial mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saucysalsa30 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- The above series of rants by Saucysalsa30 should be taken with a grain of salt. They are tendentious walls of text intended to obscure the issues and confuse readers rather than to illuminate the issues in a serious way. As just one example, Saucysalsa30 dismisses Makiya's Republic of Fear: The Politics of Modern Iraq (University of California Press, 1998) by stating that it
"itself claims to being unreliable"
; however, Makiya makes no such admission in the book, which was published by a respected academic outlet, only offering standard-place caveats about the limitations of gathering evidence from inside closed-off and authoritarian societies. In another passage, Saucysalsa30 states:"It is true and verifiable that Kuwait and Saudi Arabia supported Iraq during the war, but the claim of a conspiracy and agreement between the 3 nations before the war to support Iraq and attack Iran is novel."
However, it is completely uncontroversial and widely documented in numerous academic sources that Iraq did consult with both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia regarding its invasion plans well before the invasion of Iran in September 1980, most notably during Saddam's visit to Saudi Arabia in August of that year. (For just one example, see "Saddam did so in August 1980, when he traveled to Saudi Arabia to consult with King Khalid about his invasion plans," but given that there are probably dozens of respected academic sources that could be cited, it is ridiculous that Saucysalsa30 depicts this fact as some sort of"novel"
conjecture or conspiracy theory. Moreover, there is evidence of Kuwaiti foreknowledge about Iraq's planned invasion as early as April 1980.) - Simply put, Saucysalsa30 is interested in making it appear that there is no consensus on even the most basic facts about the Iran–Iraq War, such as the generally-accepted (even according to the United Nations) fact that the invasion of Iran was a premeditated act of aggression by Iraq, that Iraq's claims of "preemption" are highly dubious, and that Iran was grossly unprepared for war at that time (and, in fact, had allowed Iraq to unilaterally abrogate the 1975 Algiers Agreement without taking any real response, thus begging the question of why Iraq still had to launch a massive invasion of Iran?). Instead, Saucysalsa30 would have you believe that the true origins of the war are shrouded in mystery and basically impossible to understand, which is not the case, especially as the Iraqi archives are now open and scholars such as Murray and Woods 2014 have written entire book-length studies of Iraqi decision-making during the war based on documents taken straight from the horse's mouth.
- Finally, while Saucysalsa30's claims of WP:OR and poor sourcing do not appear to be valid, his own edits are rife with original research and misuse of sources: Consider
"However, the claim of hoping to annex Khuzestan is contradicted by Saddam calling for a renewed diplomacy and successive ceasefire offers, one of which came in the first two weeks of the war, which Ayatollah Khomeini refused."
That edit (diff) uses an October 1980 Washington Post article stating only that"Iraqi Foreign Minister Saadoun Hammadi, at the United Nations in New York, renewed President Saddam Hussein's offer earlier this week for a four-day cease-fire in place that he said Iraq would honor as long as Iran did not fire on its troops. That possibility seemed negligible, to say the least, given the toe-to-toe fighting going on for the past 48 hours in Khorramshahr as well as several other places inside Iran's borders."
to call into question the numerous highly-respected sources repeating the (virtually universally-accepted) fact that Iraq sought to annex Khuzestan, despite The Washington Post not saying anything of the kind and such an interpretation being pure OR on Saucysalsa30's part. (In fact, The Washington Post's coverage makes clear that the four-day ceasefire was not a serious offer as Iraq continued to occupy Iranian territory!) In sum, if you ever needed a textbook example of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing, look no further than the walls of text above.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've literally pointed out cases where sources were completely misquoted and failed verification, and your response is a series of personal attacks? Ironic coming from someone heavily invested in curating a very one-sided narrative and even using user-generated blogs as sources. There's even content on the article that does not even exist in the cited sources. Textbook definition of failed verification, and you defend that? The fact you choose to ignore addressing and even defend very obvious failed verification, original research, POV, bad sourcing, and a host of other issues, and instead delve in a serious of personal attacks is proof that you should be taken with a grain of salt, if not less.
- This part in your driveling response was funny though. "in fact, had allowed Iraq to unilaterally abrogate the 1975 Algiers Agreement without taking any real response". Is that why Iran abrogated the treaty on 14 September, 3 days before Iraq did, in a couple of the very sources already existing in this Wiki article? That was actually included in the fixing up of the article if you had bothered to read it. It's very obvious you push a one-sided, pseudo-true narrative on this and other pages, and of course this is further proof you should be taken with a grain of salt.
- Are you actually claiming that Washington Post is an unreliable source? So you nitpick and distort reliable sourcing by world-renowned publications, but then you use personal blog pages as "reliable sources"? That's very bizarre.
- You also did not address anything other than one thing, really. Seems like some a very selective (and self-defeating) argument. Nitpicking one thing and a barrage of personal attacks, and including how you're getting things wrong along with your own personal conjecture is a very poor defense of your position. So why is it you defend blatant original research, failed verification, textbook examples of terrible sourcing, and engage in childish attacks?
- Unfortunately, TheTimesAreAChanging has been engaged for years in creating very one-sided narratives in this and related Wiki articles, even defending the use of blog websites as sources and the original research on the article (for example, the Wikipedia article's content from Karsh directly contradicts what the book actually says). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)