Talk:To the Youth in Europe and North America

Impact
Hello. I appreciate your work on this article, but have you considered whether the topic is notable? In a few days or weeks, will anyone in Iran (let alone the rest of the world) still be talking or thinking about this particular tweet that Khamenei made? It's commonplace to overestimate the importance of recent events.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Anders Feder. Thanks for your note. I think it has had a good coverage, though I cannot comment on the duration of the coverage before passing the duration. Hadi (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed copyvios and added some maintenance tags due to the fact that the article in its current form is unbalanced and presents only one POV. There is also no criticism or reception section. I am also not sure regarding its notability. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 06:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

So, about 10 days have passed now. What WP:LASTING impact have this tweet/"letter" had?--Anders Feder (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tags
I saw your recent edits which contained some removal and tagging. Do you think we can discuss the problems here one by one. By the way, thanks for removing copy vio texts. Mhhossein (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You are welcome, thank you. As far as the article tagging for problems, as I wrote in the section above, the material is presented without a criticism section and without giving an overview of the reactions by other commentators to the message. In its current form, it is therefore unbalanced and POV. If you can find material which addresses these issues, then the tags can be removed. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I added the criticism section to the article. I hope it would solve the problem. Hadi (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After your addition of the criticism section, the article is in much better shape than before. Thank you for your work. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Criticism

 * I am trying too add some criticism by notable people. I am trying to keep it balanced, and am open to all suggestions. Also, there is a lot of praise by notable people, maybe this should be included as well? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any type of notable reaction can be included. Perhaps we can merge both praise and criticism under a "Reception" section. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sentences such as "It is very unusual for Khamenei to address western youth..." should be attributed to the person(s) claiming this. Mhhossein (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that 10 lines have been dedicated to explaining the opinion of a Jewish Conservative pundit, Michael L Brown! Isn't this a glaring case of undue weight or excess elaboration? It has to be shortened then! Strivingsoul (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the second thought I decided to entirely delete Brown's POV since it is an argument against Islam rather than an opinion about the subject of the letter itself which is an appeal for objective study. Strivingsoul (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, should we keep the opinion by Karim Sadjadpour which includes derogatory characterization of Ayatollah Khamenei as "outsized confidence, dogmatic worldview, and victimization complex."? Does this kind of defamatory descriptions conform to Wiki policies? Strivingsoul (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a political message and as such all political reactions to that message must be included. The opinion of political pundits has to be presented clearly and without attempts to favour one type of argument over another. The ethnicity and political affiliation of the commentators is irrelevant and their views have to be respected and presented in this article. There is no defamation involved in robustly analysing Khamenei's political message. It is called freedom of expression. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My mention of ethnicity was for introductory purposes and irrelevant to my argument. You didn't explain why 10 lines must be dedicated to an opinion which involves arguing against Islam rather than the subject of the message which is a call to objective study. My concern is that the section turns into arguments for and against Islam, rather than comments on the letter's subject. Also the argument that the message is political is debatable, since the core subject of the letter is clearly intellectual and is issued by Khameneni in his capacity first and foremost as a muslim cleric and scholar. POVs that address the politics are hardly relevant to the core subject of the letter. Strivingsoul (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The methodology and contents of the response by each critic is different but I don't think that we can impose selection criteria as to what kind of comments appear on the reception section, although perhaps an argument can be made to tone down the rhetoric. But if we start going down that path, then we have to also cut back on Khamenei's rhetoric when he accuses the West that they recruit terrorists. But that would be counterproductive because if we start censoring the letter, and the reactions to it, the article will suffer. It's a tough debate, but I think that as long as they are notable, reactions which followed the issuance of this letter should be included because they form part of the debate surrounding this letter. As far as the nature of the letter not being political, I have to disagree. Contents such as "Don't allow them [western countries] to hypocritically introduce their own recruited terrorists as representatives of Islam." sound political. I don't doubt that segments of the letter are also scholarly and even contemplative. But once one introduces politics into scholarship, then scholarship becomes irretrievably politicised and tainted by politics. In any case, our opinions don't really matter. In my opinion, what matters is to accurately reflect the contents of the letter and the world's reaction to it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'm partly in agreement with Δρ.Κ., while I can't ignore Strivingsoul's reasonable justification. As we are going to build up an encyclopedia, we have to reflect different aspects of an issue in it's related pages. For this specific case, reactions toward the letter are, of course, critical and should be concluded. But this does not mean that we should not be careful about the weight of viewpoints of different parties. So, If some one criticized/admired the letter we have to be as brief as possible and just express the core contents. Consequently, I believe that those 10 lines are giving undue weight to ones' view. Shall we have two different sections; one for criticisms and the other for compliments? Mhhossein (talk) 08:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mhhossein for your well-thought out comments. I don't disagree that we can cut back on some excessive details of Brown's comments, but I think we should not open separate praise or criticism sections, but retain them in the same reception section per WP:CRITS. We should always try to blend the two so that the article looks more unified and people don't get the idea that they have to keep dumping praise and criticism on separate sections. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry for the grammatical errors, I tried to fix them) You're welcome Dr.K. I think this is how we should cooperate to enhance the articles. Yeah you're right, having two different sections is not that good. So, lets see what say about it. Mhhossein (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, nice to see we're reaching a consensus. So shall we shorten Brown's comment? And btw I noticed that one comment by an Italian anthropologist was removed for having been reported by an Iranian government-linked news agency. Is the government affiliation of a source in and of itself a definite warrant for deletion? Strivingsoul (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Please try your hand at shortening Brown's comments. As far as the Italian anthropologist, the issue for me is not that they were reported by an Iranian agency, but that I think her comments don't sound like those of an expert, to say the least, and also the comments are made in an email interview which is an unusual practice and looks like solicitation by the Iranian agency. One example of questionable quality comments is: We can think of it as a sign of respect: the important words from a religious Leader could not be shared just on a piece of paper, but still this reflects my theory about the prejudice on Iran. That sounds somehow naive and contradictory. Several of her other comments don't sound like those of an expert either; example: Iran’s Supreme Leader understands better than anyone the importance of the new generation. He is talking to them because he knows the elder are already spoiled.. The supreme leader understands youth "better than anyone"? Spoiled elders? These are not signs of a quality analysis. Overall, I don't think these comments should be included due to low quality. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 05:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright! I agree that the comment by the Italian anthropologist doesn't seem very professional. And here is my attempt at shortening Brown's opinion. I also needed to add a reasonable comment to his POV since it seems to entirely miss the Leader's argument in regards with the roots of the so-called "muslim" terrorism. The outcome became inevitably nearly as long! : American conservative pundit Michael L. Brown wrote a response letter to Khamenei. He praised the leader for using modern technology and attempting to bring harmony between civilizations, but also accused him of trying to stoke division between generations in the West. He went on to write "Your [sic] are concerned about Islamophobia writing, “I would like you to ask yourself why the old policy of spreading ‘phobia’ and hatred has targeted Islam and Muslims with an unprecedented intensity.” The answer, respected sir, is that our people and our buildings have been blown up by religious Muslims and our citizens have been beheaded by devout followers of Islam." He then cites violent actions by some heterogeneous "muslim" groups such as the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, ISIS and Hamas as being responsible for Islamophobia. However some of these are the same groups that Khamenei had already dismissed as not representing Islam by claiming that they are Western governments' "own recruited terrorists".  Strivingsoul (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the proposed text looks good, except the term "heterogeneous" is not in the citation. Also the last sentence: However some of these are the same groups that Khamenei had already dismissed as not representing Islam by claiming that they are Western governments' "own recruited terrorists" is also not in the citation. Anything that is not in the citation is original research and is not allowed, no matter how true it may be. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, your right! I'm relatively new to wiki and looking into original research I realized that that would count as "Synthesis of published material" which is not allowed in Wiki. So may summary would only exclude the last sentence. Strivingsoul (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for updating your knowledge of the policies so fast. :) I see no problem with the rest of your edit. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 18:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your guidance! :) Strivingsoul (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Thank you for improving the article. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 06:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. Mhhossein (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You removed a critical comment, giving as a reason that "a comment based on some allegations does not deserve to be here". The whole ayatollah's letter is itself based on allegations - what allegation disqualifies the critical comment, and why?--Anders Feder (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that it was a auspicious, necessary move to remove that random comment, for the author is not a notable or credible personality. She seems like a random guy from an online community! Lacking any demonstrable authority on Iran, her allegation has no credibility on itself. The link that she provides as a source of the allegation also doesn't include anything relevant! I'd wonder how such a low comment made its way to the page in the first place and, even worse, had survived our verification! Strivingsoul (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked editor
Please note that the IP editor who made this major revert was blocked after making the revert, as can be seen from their userpage. I hope the IP does not return to do more edits. ~ P-123 (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * P-123 why not come clean? Didn't u go admin shopping and sent secret emails to get that editor blocked so u can prevent them from editing this article? How would you like it if someone did the same to you and got you topic banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.87.192.123 (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That IP is one of several with a similar IP number that got reported for harassment and are now blocked. ~ P-123 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I really see no solid reason for his reverts, he should not have done that! I thing the IP should have been blocked because of his edits, not because of those alleged emails. However, You could keep on improving the language. Mhhossein (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have copy-edited the article as far as I am able, given the restrictions I am under. ;) ~ P-123 (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts. Mhhossein (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Renaming the title
I think we need to change the title into something that clearly stands for the subject. It therefore has to include 'letter' and a reference to the author. So shall we change it to something like "Khamenei's letter to the Western youth"? Strivingsoul (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strivingsoul: First of all you should act based on WP:MOVEREQ. By the way, does your proposed title get more hits when googled? how does reliable sources refer to this letter? Mhhossein (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late reply. My alternative doesn't return more results than the current title, however I think people looking for info about the letter would tend to search it using relevant keywords than the opening title of the letter verbatim. Strivingsoul (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unverified tweeter account
As we know, Khamenei's tweeter account is not verified officially and there's no mention of it in reliable sources, and the account is just attributed to him. So, how can he be criticized for using tweeter, as you can see in the article as such:"He released his letter on Twitter, a website which has been blocked in Iran since the presidential election in 2009, when people used the website to raise their protests. It seems Khamenei, himself, is aware of the contradiction, as he writes the letter from the stand point of a scholar and not a leader."? Mhhossein (talk) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Paul Craig Roberts
Anders Feder: I just wanted to let you know that you had probably missed a point in self-published sources that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Paul Craig Roberts, as his page shows, is an expert with enough experience. you may look at his CV and the books he has authored. So, I'll undo your edit. Mhhossein (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I did look at his CV, which says he is an economist. How does that make him an established expert on Iran or communication studies?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * He doesn't need to be an established expert on Iran or communication studies for making such a comment. As you see he has authored books such as "How America Was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State" and "The Capitalist Revolution in Latin America" and consider that Economics is not a discrete field falling far from political issues. He seems experienced enough for judging "Western politicians and media". Mhhossein (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read your own quotation above: "Self-published expert sources be considered reliable ." Is economics the subject matter of the ayatollah's letter or any matter surrounding it?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, the action of sending such a letter as a message to the youth is within the realm of his expertise. By the way, he is not merely an economist, as his published views suggest. Mhhossein (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what I asked. Answer my question, please. His views are completely irrelevant - Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC
 * It is already answered. 1-Economics is not a discrete field falling far from social issues. 2- his published views are relevant to such a social issue. 3- He authored books on economical and socio political issues. Mhhossein (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Is economics the subject matter of the ayatollah's letter or any matter surrounding it? Yes or no? Sidestepping the question does not result in it being answered.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not sidestepping. Please read the comments to get your answer and consider that he is not merely an economist. Btw is it merely an economical book? Mhhossein (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Mhhossein and Anders Feder - I saw this at DRN so I thought I would give my two cents for what it is worth. In the link that has been posted to the book, the author is given the introduction of being assistant secretary of the US treasury. His field of expertise, as is widely known, is economics. The policy which has been quoted at the start of this thread, says that the self-published expert source can be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. This person is not an established expert on the subject matter as the article does not relate to economics. Secondly the use of his book on 9/11 does not lend credence to the use of his self-published source because even though he wrote that book, he is still not considered an expert on Iran or Middle East or Intergovernmental communications. So in summary this person would need to be an expert in the area relating to the subject matter of this article, then he would need to have a work published on the subject matter through third party publications and then finally you could use his self-published source. As this source does not meet this criteria, it should not be used. I may be missing something here so do let me know if that is the case. Mbcap (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It might be better to cite it from Foreign Policy Journal or OpEdNews. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Per the above, will you undo your revert?--Anders Feder (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No need for a revert, the article is published elsewhere, and the articles citations now reflect this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard
 * I think it's fair to say that Paul Craig Roberts is no longer followed by anyone but cranks and conspiracy theorists, and Kevin Barrett was never taken seriously outside the same circles. Barrett will say whatever the Iranian government pays him to say, all the way up to promoting Holocaust denial. "Foreign Policy Journal" is also apparently just a tiny blog out of Michigan. Including such incredibly marginal sources makes it look like someone is scraping the bottom of the barrel to puff up the article and make a message that came and went far look more important than it really was. JamieRitter (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am removing this source per what writes above and this earlier discussion at WP:RSN. If anyone wants to restore the source, take it to RSN.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Justified removal, I think. Feel free to take Kevin Barrett as well if you'd like; at least Roberts, obscure as he is, has a Wikipedia article. JamieRitter (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would agree completely. Unfortunately there is a massive amount of tag-teaming going on in these Iran-related articles, aimed at dissuading good faith editors from cleaning out the propaganda, that make such changes difficult and unreasonably time-consuming.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Mashable quote
The following was deleted from the article with a reference to a talk page discussion. I could not find any discussion above, so I am showing the deleted paragraph below. Is there any consensus to keep it out of the article?
 * Elif Koc of Mashable commented that "In a country notorious for its limitations on freedom of speech, Twitter is blocked, but Khamenei's office maintains a Twitter presence. Other Twitter users relayed messages to Khamenei highlighting the limitations of Iran's own policies on free speech using #LETTER4U. One shared a personal anecdote about his father. 'Dear Youth!, My dad spent 5 years in jail for just telling the guy who wrote you a letter he is a dictator #Letter4U.'"[21] Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ism schism I think the editor may be referring to the thread above titled, "Unverified tweeter account". Whether it should stay or be deleted, that I do not know. Mbcap (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Please note the last exchange in Criticism. Strivingsoul (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Strivingsoul whether you like, or don't like, a source doesn't matter. If a journalist is published by a reliable source, and they comment on the article's subject, then it is generally worthy of being included in the article. In this case, a journalist from Mashable, "an online news community... offers news, information, and resources that cover digital culture, social media, and technology," is reliable and their article on Khamenei's letter is on a topic that is in their area of expertise. There is no valid reason for its exclusion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right but shouldn't the author have any demonstrable credentials? Moreover, as I said, the link for her extreme allegation about freedom of speech in Iran which is supposedly to back it up by a source doesn't include anything relevant to her allegation, which further undermines the professional quality of the the author and the article. These were the considerations that led me to delete her comment. Also note that we also deleted an approving comment by an Italian anthropologist for the similar reasons. Strivingsoul (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The Italian Anthropogist source was deleted because some editors questioned the source. Mashable is a reliable source, and social media and technology is their field. The author cites Bloomberg News, which states "Iranian authorities last week closed the Mardom-e Emrooz newspaper after it quoted U.S. actor George Clooney as saying “I am Charlie,” a slogan widely used to express solidarity with the victims of the Paris attacks, the Tasnim news agency reported." So, the author does back up their perspective. Given this, I dont see any reason to continue keeping this out of the article. Unless you have other unstated reasons, the material needs to be added back to the article. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the Italian anthropologist's comments were removed because they were of low quality and in places did not make sense grammatically or semantically. The Mashable quote does not have that problem. But in the "Unverified tweeter account" section above makes the point that Khamenei's account is unverified so Khamenei should not be criticised for using Twitter since his account is unverified. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  16:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)