Talk:International sanctions against Iran/Archive 2

Opinion pieces
This article looks to be ripe with opinion pieces. Would there be any objection if I ripped them out en masse? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like you have already started. Do you intend to do more?  If so it probably merits some discussion first.  Opinion pieces can be reliable sources for claims about opinions. NPguy (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it's a great source for the opinion of notable authors. Why do you think "Hillary Mann Leverett" and "Flynt Leverett" are notable? Opinion pieces can not be used to source factual statements such as Congress has also increased the penalties that can be imposed on offending entities, such as cutting them off from the US financial system. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Grrrr, what I quoted was taken verbatim from here. Now we need to check everything for WP:COPYVIO as well... TippyGoomba (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett are notable, actually Flynt Leverett is a expert just in this case about Iran and he also have a Wikipedia page, so it makes him a notable expert which his focus is just about Iran, I really can get why you delete all the sources from him from article without discussion in Talk Page first? Next time if you want delete and remove anything as sources or parts of article first put it here in talk page for at least 10 or 12 hours if there was no oppose and no other views then you may remove and do such mass edits. AND At last, would you mind if you become asked to end the WP:Trolling, and do not affect article neutrality, and do not remove facts from article... KhabarNegar (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Last word, If you want to add more information that is of course no problem and actually good BUT do not remove facts and sources which you do not like from article, that makes the article incomplete. If you want you may go add anything you like and remove anything you don't like in other articles... I want to kindly remind you of WP:neutrality. As I said you actually make me happy if you too add information to this article but do not delete other views.KhabarNegar (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. In general, the framework is: I made a big change, you revert it, then we discuss it before the change is reintroduced.
 * In this case, WP:BURDEN applies, since the manner in which these opinion pieces are currently being used is obviously going to be challenged. You need to argue for the inclusion of these sources and statements, not the other way around.
 * Opinion pieces can be used to support statements like "Flynt Leverett argues that blah blah blah" but not factual statements like "Congress has also increased the penalties that can be imposed on offending entities, such as cutting them off from the US financial system". Ask at WP:RSN, if you don't understand the difference. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material."
 * This is in the WP:BURDEN that you are showing to us! You are removing a huge part of article, Mostly sources, Your reason is wrong, and you continue doing that again & again. What are you doing? & Why?
 * "since the manner in which these opinion pieces are currently being used is obviously going to be challenged" What do you mean!? It is your Idea,... You cant remove them. Read here:RS. "You need to argue for the inclusion of these sources and statements, not the other way around." Did you read this link that you are sending here RS.
 * About this one:
 * "Opinion pieces can be used to support statements like "Flynt Leverett argues that blah blah blah" but not factual statements like "Congress has also increased the penalties that can be imposed on offending entities, such as cutting them off from the US financial system"."
 * First of all this is your view, secondly OK if you think by adding Flynt Leverett argues it would be OK so add it, although I'm disagree with you on this, but again the answer is not removing these parts of article, at last, When ever you again wanted to removed sources first see this again:RSKhabarNegar (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "my view" that these sources are misused, it's contained explicitly in the policy you've linked several times.
 * From RS:Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...".
 * Are you staying those statements have an inline qualifier? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, Good you are talking logically this time, ... which part that you are deleting, Which part is exactly is Statements of opinion from not reliable source & need the inline qualifier, OK tell which part you think is Statements of opinion from not reliable source? In this mass edit by you which part needs inline qualifier tell & I will add it in less than a day? Which part? Which part is Statements of opinion from not reliable source? Be specific please, thanks, KhabarNegar (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You'll also have to rewrite several statements anyway to comply with WP:COPYVIO. All statement supported by opinion pieces need an inline qualifier. You might want to check all the other sources for editorial standards and copyright violations as well, I suspect the aljazeera source is only the beginning. I intend to read and scrutinize every source and every sentence of this article. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to call your attention to a previous version of the section on the purpose of sanctions, as I had edited it, and is recorded in the section on false claims above. I believe this version already adheres to the Wikipedia standards cited above and has at least as much standing as the version KhabarNegar advocates. It is only his persistent refusal to accept any other text that has led to the current version being accepted as the baseline. He has effectively frozen the article in a highly unsatisfactory state.

In other words, TippyGoomba, you are not dealing with the opinion of just one editor. I have been standing aside as you have tried to deal reasonably with KhabarNegar, but I please do not mistake my patience for a lack of interest. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Once we rip out the blogs and unsupported statements, I suspect there will be nothing left. We'll likely have to rewrite it. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Can I push this back in now? WP:COPYVIO's shouldn't be hanging around like this. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored it, since there are no further objections. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

User TippyGoomba deleting sources of the texts. And also a paragraph. The description is “see talk”, in the talk he is claiming two things one Fervent Leveret is not notable & second the sentence which is removed is copy right violation. But again User:NPguy deleted so many sources and parts of the article The given description is “This was decided on the discussion page. Some reversions use opinions as sources for facts - that was decided to be inappropriate. Other reversions (alleged nuclear weapons program) are inaccurate.” Total lie, There is no decision on discussion page for not using opinion sources as source also the sources which are deleted are not opinion, they are reliable sources & if necessary anyone can add even more sources for each fact. So a mass remove without discussion on Talk page, what that mean? Plus One more important thing that User:NPguy should know, in talk page we talk about specific edits not making a different rule for an article in Wikipedia. Opinion your deletion of parts of the article and reverses are not acceptable.

In this edit TippyGoomba comes after NPguy which had deleted the source the he also deleted the claim itself by giving this description “Remove WP:copyvio taken from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201322584515426148.html” First of all the source was deleted by NPguy before TippyGoomba. Secondly TippyGoomba should not remove that sentence he should use the Talk Page to see if there are really have problem and if They can be fixed, actually not useful contribution by these two users. In next edit afterward, User:TippyGoomba again removed another sentence from article

Meanwhile another part is removed with false description as copy!? …

Another remove of sentences of article with the same description as Copy meanwhile the sources are deleted before by User:NPguy:

Totally 5 edits on that time the result was removing lots of sentences from article all of a sudden, without a single talk in talk page of the article. I tried to make him come to discussion and give reason and use logic by these below: “You are removing a huge part of article, Mostly sources, What are you doing? & Why? "since the manner in which these opinion pieces are currently being used is obviously going to be challenged" What do you mean!? It is your Idea,... You cant remove them. Read here:RS. About this one: "Opinion pieces can be used to support statements like "Flynt Leverett argues that blah blah blah" but not factual statements like "Congress has also increased the penalties that can be imposed on offending entities, such as cutting them off from the US financial system"." OK if you think by adding Flynt Leverett argues it would be OK so add it, although, again the answer is not removing these parts of article, ” All these where actually useless he continues what that he is doing: One more time User:TippyGoomba do remove this parts Without using the talk page, and have any discussion about these edits.

In talk page he is asked to discuss any part which he wants to remove first so the problems can be fixed but no help again, AND THIS IS THE LAST EDIT BY HIM, WHICH ACTUALLY SHOWS ALL THESE ARE USELESS AND HE DECIDED TO DO THE WP:TROLLING. This is reportable, and surely judging in this case shouldn’t be that much hard, so User:TippyGoomba I hereby ask you to stop these behavior and try to be a neutral user which is seeking the facts.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanctions_against_Iran&diff=560167534&oldid=559818921] Here this article should be neutral, all reliable sources and views should be included in this article if not it will just cheats the readers who ever they are, So I’m telling you Dear users, If you want to add facts ok here you sure can, But do not delete and remove views from other Reliable Sources, which you think are wrong, This makes the reader judge the case wrongly, You yourself also if you see a reliable source and reliable view just say aha! , as I too do, Its shouldn’t be a place for any bias, Thanks, Regards, KhabarNegar Talk 19:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've taken this to WP:AN/I. I will suspend discussion here until it concludes. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you KhabarNegar  Talk 21:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I've made this post at WP:AN/I to hopefully have User:KhabarNegar blocked. TippyGoomba (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks-long overdue--Isaacsirup (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Effects on ordinary people section

 * Over the past years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid. But Internet users in sanctioned countries have long complained about the effects of export controls, the result of which is often the wholesale blocking of communications technologies and bans from web hosting, among other things.


 * Goals like Internet freedom, so central to pro-democracy and human rights movements are being undermined in Iran because companies, including Google, Yahoo and certain Web hosts, deny services to computers with Iranian I.P. addresses. The Treasury and State Departments have significantly stepped up pressure on private companies and banks in America and around the world to abandon commercial activity with Iran as tensions between the two countries increase. Often, these private entities decide that it is simply not worth the risk of violating sanctions to continue facilitating even perfectly valid transactions.


 * The European firm was forced to disconnect around 30 Iranian banks, including the country's central bank, from its network following a European Union ban on dealing with the institutions. Iran has faced progressively tougher sanctions from the U.S. and the E.U. Iran's oil exports have dropped sharply over the past year because of sanctions, Iran has been affected by the slump in oil exports and the refusal of many international banks to make deals as a result of the sanctions. That result has triggered a sharp drop in the Iranian currency, and forced Iran to cut back on imports. Iran banned imports of 2,000 luxury items, including mobile phones, laptops and cars, in an effort to conserve foreign currency. Authorities have divided imports into 10 categories based on how essential they are seen to be, and will provide importers with dollars at a subsidized rate to buy basic goods. To save billions of dollars for essential products in the face of worsening sanctions Iran has banned the import of some "luxury goods" including foreign-made cars and mobile phones.


 * The sanctions have the effect of denying Iranian citizens access to many information technology products.  A major example was when, a woman with Iranian parents was barred from buying an Apple iPad in a US store after one of the Apple salespeople heard her speaking in Persian. The salesperson cited the US ban on exports of high technology goods to Iran. When Sahar Sabet, entered an Apple store in Georgia to buy an iPad. After a sales associate overheard the 19-year-old speaking Persian on her cell phone, she was turned away and told that she couldn't make her purchase because Iran and the US "have bad relations". According to media reports, Sahar Sabet, 19, an American citizen was discussing, in Persian, with his uncle the purchase in the Apple store in Atlanta, Georgia when she was overheard by a salesperson, who asked what language she was speaking. Upon being told it was the Iranian language, the salesman then said that he could not sell her the iPad due to the US embargo on Iran. Apple's head office suggested that she make the purchase online to avoid dealing with sales staff. The refusal is actually based on Apple’s corporate policy on export sales, which reads: The U.S. holds complete embargoes against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria Sabet says she later called Apple’s corporate customer relations, where an employee (An Apple representative) reportedly later apologized to Sabet and told her she could buy the iPad online through the company's online store. Sabet is a U.S. citizen a student at the University of Georgia but the iPad was to be a gift for a cousin living in Iran. According to ACLU of Georgia National Security and Immigrants' Rights Director Azadeh Shahshahani, the organization is in contact with the Department of Justice and is keeping "all of our options open moving forward," including potential legal proceedings against Apple. The open letter to Apple states that the coalition expects the company to reply with specific actions to "rectify the situation" within a week of receipt. The real problem isn't the company, but the export restrictions and how they're enforced. the real problem is inherent in the way the U.S. government administers sanctions.


 * Broad-based sanctions all too often cause harm and deprivation to ordinary citizens.

I wiped out this totally. It has lots of problems, but there should be stuff in it to salvage. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

More blogs
An IP is attempting to add the following to the article, which I reverted since the sources are all blogs. It was reverted claiming they were not blogs.

American officials have termed the sanctions on Iran as "the most severe sanctions in world history" and "the most crippling in history of sanctions".

The first has the word "blog" in big letters are the top. The second has the word "blog" in the domain name. The third identifies itself as "an independent, blog-based web magazine" near the bottom. All blogs. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy does not rule out the use of blogs:


 * "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."


 * On that basis I think the first two citations are reliable, but the third is not. I think the second quote (most crippling) is usable but not the first (most severe).  I'm quite sure the substance is correct, and you could find more U.S. officials calling the sanctions "crippling" during that time period (September-October 2012).  Such statement were quite prevalent then, but I haven't heard them lately.  Ideally one might want better sources, but these seem good enough IMO. NPguy (talk)
 * Can you provide evidence that the sources meet the criteria given, specifically "the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control"? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How would one do that? If you go to the second link there's an embedded CNN video clip of the interview being quoted.  It seems self-evidently reliable. NPguy (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So let's exclude the other two from the discussion. The video has a "Obama campaign Adviser" saying this, not exactly what I would call an "american official". Per WP:WEIGHT, I oppose including her opinion on the matter. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Michele Fluornoy was a senior Defense Department official when the sanctions were being developed and implemented. She was no mere "advisor."  How about this White House Fact Sheet as a reliable source? NPguy (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking
A new editor has started massively wikilinking a section. I'd invite everyone to read WP:BTW. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Reasons for sanctions" section doesn't provide reasons
"Reasons for sanctions" section doesn't provide reasons for sanctions. If anything, it gives reasons against sanctions by defending Iran. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If no one responds to this problem, I believe it should be erased. No?

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to add something explaining the reasons for the UN sanctions. The UNSCRs themselves are a primary source, but there are probably contemporaneous secondary sources. NPguy (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)