Talk:Péri Cochin

Nomination for deletion & deletion of paragraphs
Dear User:GorgeCustersSabre, Salam, I do agree that the version of the article before yesterday was pretty lousy, especially with regard to lacking references. And I do assume that your cutting down of the text was in good faith, but yes, I hope we can work it out. No offense meant but I do object obviously against your rather radical cutting of my edits:
 * - no doubt she "comes from prominent families of transnational identities with a Shia background" and not just "has a Shia background". I mean, I lived in Southern Lebanon for two years and can testify to it: whether you like it or not, this is Shia "aristocracy" and as such VERY relevant and notable, as a lot of Lebanese who were impoverished by this "elite" can testify to.
 * - to cut out the "controversial" before Ahmad Chalabi, who was one of THE driving forces before the 2003 Iraq invasion (!!!) after all, I find - with all due respect - rather obscuring and thus white-washing than neutral.
 * - the background of Cochin's grandfather Kazem, who she has repeatedly invoked in interviews, as a key-politician and the many-fold in-law and family ties with the Osseiran dynasty are very relevant for the understanding of her position. Please just imagine that for the place where you come from or live in I would cut out the info about a TV host celebrity being closely related to one of THE founding-fathers of the nation. Would you seriously consider that waffling? Again, I myself may not be a huge fan of that system of a privileged jet-set upper-class exploiting the masses, but it is surely all the more noteworthy.

For those reasons I undo your edits that cut down mine and moreover object to the nomination of deletion. Again, I appreciate your committment to copy-editing, but argue that it went off the mark in this case. I shall try to improve the article in the coming few days, although I personally find it deplorable that in our times it seems that TV hosts are particularly notable..RomanDeckert (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My dear friend, Waalaykum salam warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Thanks for writing. Words like “controversial” are subjective and unhelpful unless you can show that this is a published assessment, and not your own opinion. All the egregious ancestry and family narrative is so extraneous that I can’t imagine it surviving. It doesn’t add what you seem to think it adds. This is my own assessment, and I may be wrong. But like you I have to edit according to what I understand Wikipedia guidelines are saying. None of this is personal. If other editors take your position, or a different position, I’m happy to say I’m wrong. But let’s wait and see first before we add unreferenced information back. Very best regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear User:GorgeCustersSabre, Salam, thank you for your reply. I appreciate your kind tone, but would appreciate if you replied more specifically to my points. You generalise by saying that "words like controversial are subjective" as such. At first I thought this was very formalist, but at closer look - with all due respect - it does not make sense at all. If you want to keep on undoing my edits, do first reply to the following argument:
 * the 2003 invasion of Iraq was OBJECTIVELY a breach of international law, was it not? That war killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqi civilians, did it not? Ahmad Chalabi was a driving force in the run-up to the war, was he not? He was at the forefront of promoting false premises to justify the invasion with fake claims about weapons of mass destruction, did he not?? So how on earth could that not be controversial???? It is an objective fact that he was a controversial figure, as reflected in all the obituaries, not just the NYT. How could he not be? In reverse, do you seriously claimed that he was a non-controversial figure??? Please, do not just brush it off by claiming to maintain neutrality. He was controversial, period. His supporters surely feel he was terrific, though even his US allies soon dropped him as too toxic. His opponents surely feel he was terrible. So that makes him OBJECTIVELY a controversial figure. It is not my personal opinion at all. YOU are being subjective by pretending that he was not controversial. This even does not take into account that he was convicted of a 100 million US$ bank fraud in Jordan, which I assume also according to Wikipedia guidelines would make him controversial.
 * The family ancestry may seem extraneous to you and to me, fair enough, which is vety subjective. However, excuse me, I find this notion of yours very condescending and ignorant to justify deleting that part of the text. You may be assured that in Lebanon family ancestry is OBJECTIVELY V-E-R-Y important, whether you like it or not. It is absolutely relevant, alas. As I see that you are a member of the Wikipedia Project Pakistan I did a little research how this issue is handled on articles there. I therefore challenge you to first cut down the ancestry of Benazir Bhutto or Imran Khan, where some 16th century ancestors are invoked! Likewise, to delete the word "controversial" from articles like Qandeel Baloch systematically, before venturing into parts of the world that you know less and apllying double-standards.RomanDeckert (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Merely asserting the objectivity of a statement, and doing so in capital letters, does not make it so. And please assume good faith. Getting personal about my intentions is unnecessary and unhelpful. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)