Talk:Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran

Untitled
Material from a recently deleted article, that could be used to enhance this article is available at Talk:Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran/Action Iran ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the notability problem?
Someone put a tag including "The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since May 2009." Boud (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sanctions that presently do exist against Iran and the repeated threats of military intervention in Iran are major geopolitical issues. If your own general knowledge is not enough to establish this, see e.g. google news right now 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) which gives about 5000 stories related to "attack iran". CASMII is the best known organisation campaigning against both of these.
 * A google search on "casmii" gives 48,00 results - it's unlikely that there are many other uses of exactly the same acronym.

BTW, it's correct that it would be good to add more third-party references, and the self-published references may need to be double-checked, depending on what sort of information is used from them. Boud (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability problem comes from exactly that, the lack of third-party references. The General notability guideline says, in part, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.


 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]"


 * So, in order to satisfy notability here, we need sources that arent just from the group itself and cover the topic in a more than passing way. Bonewah (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We now have five third party sources supporting various claims of what CASMII claims it aims to do and does: Boud (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hands Off the People of Iran - agrees with CASMII's claims as antiwar, criticises CASMII for not being sufficiently revolutionary
 * National Iranian American Council - reports on CASMII action in demo, etc.
 * Z Communications - debates antiwar strategy with CASMII
 * Media Lens - supports a CASMII anti-war-propaganda media analysis
 * Monthly Review - about the Tisdall/Guardian article

The problem with those sources are that they either are not reliable sources, like HOPI, or dont cover the subject in any detail, like the Monthly Review. Bonewah (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The topic here is not a question of physics or medical knowledge or 16th century clothing styles in Hungary - none of these sources are qualified for those specialist topics - it's a question of the existence and actions of an activist organisation related to anti-war-on-iran activism, based mainly in UK and USA. The reliable sources we could reasonably expect to exist are other organisations that could be expected to support anti-war-on-iran activism in those same countries. As for your specific points:
 * Hands Off the People of Iran is surely reliable enough for a claim as to whether HOPI agrees with CASMII or not, and a reliable enough to establish that CASMII is another anti-war-on-iran organisation. Are you sure you are not confusing bias with reliability? HOPI can be reasonably be expected to be biased in favour of certain political viewpoints of Iranians and some groups in Britain - just like the BBC is biased in favour of the British government and the New York Times is biased in favour of the US government (both offer mild, but not fundamental, criticisms of their respective governments). However, the latter two are widely accepted as reliable sources in the en.wikipedia despite their documented biases and inaccuracies in reporting.
 * Monthly Review - there's a word-for-word quote of one of the main people in CASMII - surely that's detail enough to say that Monthly Review believes that Abbas Edalat made those statements in his role as a CASMII member/leader. If it is true that CASMII publicly criticised The Guardian in the belief that The Guardian published a highly misleading article, then that is evidence that CASMII carried out a (media-related) action consistent with its stated aims.
 * What are the specific problems you are suggesting with National Iranian American Council, Z Communications and Media Lens ? Boud (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Other reliable sources recommending prominent CASMII members (see article for details): Boud (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * German Institute of Global and Area Studies
 * Global Exchange


 * Its not just a question of if this organization exists, but is it notable? Again, read the general notability guideline its all spelled out there.  Reliable sources in this context are news organizations and other sources of information that have a reputation of independence and fact checking, so, another anti-war group does not cut it. Likewise with the National Iranian American council, just another advocacy group so they dont qualify. Also, read Notability guidelines for organizations, which covers the rules for determining if an organization such as CASMII is notable enough for its own article. Some portions of that page to consider:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. And: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. Ill have to take a closer look at Z communications, but im doubting that it qualifies as a Reliable source. HOPI and National Iranian American Council are most certainly not reliable sources, however. Bonewah (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Lens may or may not be a RS, it doesnt really matter, they only mention CASMII in a passing way. Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with Monthly Review, although they mention CASMII, they do not treat the subject in any detail. Again from WP:GNG, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail Remember, the question here is not, 'does this organization exist?' but rather 'Is this organization notable by Wikipedia standards?' Bonewah (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind the Wikipedia aim of covering the sum of all human knowledge, let's check further what WP:GROUP says: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:   1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources." 1. is clearly satisfied if CASMII's own claims are correct. 2. requires sources that are authoritative regarding the existence of the organisation and the activities it claims to carry out. Boud (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Are HOPI and NIAC reliable sources?
Bonewah wrote: "HOPI and National Iranian American Council are most certainly not reliable sources, ..."

Repeating your claim about HOPI will not help me and others understand why you are trying to claim that.

Let's check what WP:RS says:
 * their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.

Note the emphasis on in relation to the subject at hand. The subject is CASMII as an anti-war-on-Iran activist group based in UK and USA.


 * HOPI is an anti-war-on-Iran group based in the UK. In relation to the subject at hand, they judge that CASMII is an important enough anti-war-on-Iran group to be criticised. Can you suggest a more authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the UK? Boud (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * NIAC is an organisation of "Iranian Americans", including many professionals. Since they are involved in advocacy with media and politicians and include many professionals, they necessarily have "people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing". Can you suggest a more authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the USA? Boud (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, any independent media source with a reputation of fact checking. Both of the groups above are related to CASMII and neither have any reputation for fact checking. Come on now, if this group is really notable, then someone in the media would have noted them in a more than passing way. You cant just find another anti-war group and use them as a source, that sets up a citation loop. Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i think you misunderstood my question. Could you please suggest a specific more authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the USA?
 * As for a reputation of fact-checking, that's rather disputed for media organisations and depends to some degree on the demographic/political/etc. selection profile of the person judging the reputation. i suggest it will be easier if we stick to the need for "people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing" rather than the more vague concept of "having a reputation of fact checking". As for the problem of a citation loop:
 * Firstly, you seem to suggest that anti-war groups in general lack socio-political diversity. This is not true - the largest political demonstration in the history of the United Kingdom was an anti-war demonstration - you don't get that without a wide diversity of participants' backgrounds. Anti-war groups come from the whole political spectrum in terms of left vs right, though tend to be more anti-authoritarian (anarchist) than pro-authoritarian, both young and old, male and female, and from cultures/ethnicities and religions from all around the world. So support or criticism by other anti-war groups is not just an inbred citation loop.
 * Secondly, the close interconnectedness of the Global Village makes it difficult to find groups that are genuinely independent of one another if you make the independence criteria strict enough.
 * Anyway, hopefully my question is now clearer: could you please suggest a specific more authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the USA? Ideally, it should be independent from the military-industrial complex that the US five star general who became the 1st Supreme Allied Commander Europe referred to. Given my comment about the close interconnectedness of the Global Village, this is clearly difficult, but it's the same problem both for anti-war and pro-war groups. Boud (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, specifically any major news organization would work. The "having a reputation of fact checking" line comes directly from reliable sources, its part of the first line in the overview section. As for the diversity of anti-war groups participants, I have no opinion other than to note that it doesnt really matter in this context. Bonewah (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have not named a specific more authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the USA. If you can name a "major news organisation" that is an authoritative source in relation to anti-war-on-Iran groups in the USA, then please do so and our discussion for working on this article will be able to progress. Boud (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what it is you want. The reliable sources article spells out the criteria for reliability, just adhere to that. Another anti-war group is most definitely not reliable, HOPI and NIAC have no reputation for fact checking or accuracy whatsoever, they are not news organizations or scholarly institutions or anything else that would qualify them as reliable. It is not a question of what would be more reliable, they simply are not reliable in this context. If you want to establish notability then you need to find 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'.  That is taken directly from the notability guideline. Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928213724/http://www.actioniran.org.uk/2006/09/hans-von-sponeck-warns-of-us-plans-of.htm to http://www.actioniran.org.uk/2006/09/hans-von-sponeck-warns-of-us-plans-of.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090803145858/http://www.hopoi.org:80/articles/Casmii%20July%2017.html to http://www.hopoi.org/articles/Casmii%20July%2017.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091009025330/http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=about to http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=about
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.udosteinbach.eu/cms/content/view/12/26/lang,/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/default/dok/186/186466.iran@fr.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010121358/http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2471/2471021.html to http://www.peacenews.info/issues/2471/2471021.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212033309/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11720 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11720

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)