User talk:Waterlswet2

Hi Waterlswet2, happy new year to you. I reverted the changes made to Mr Mousavian wiki page as the cited material does not show proof of controversy. Simply stating that its controversial, especially if the cited source appears to be controversial, does not make it sufficient proof of potentially damaging a living person's biography on Wikipedia, in this case linking him to the Mykonos assassination, when he was not convicted / charged for that offense. It could be argued that if he was convicted of it, then it could be seen as controversial by some parties for Princeton to host him. Secondly, one of your sources was in Farsi language and I asked a language expert to review and nowhere in that article did it mention the Mykonos assassination. Hope that clears it up. Thanks in advance!

'''I don't know who posted that message to me above, but hi there! I understand your point, and it is certainly valid.'''

'''I think, though, that the problem here is really the phrasing of this Mykonos issue because it is definitely an issue that needs to be voiced in a balanced way. It should certainly not be written that Dr. Mousavian was linked to the Mykonos assassinations nor should anyone say that he was charged let alone convicted for anything associate with those assassinations. '''

'''However, especially in this day and age of corruption and legal incongruencies, the definition of a controversy is not determined by whether someone is charged or convicted. I have no idea where that notion arose from, but if Wikipedia outlines that, then please let me know. A controversy is a "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (Merriam-Webster) and such takes place and should be noted of. If Dr. Mousavian has a counter to the controversy, then that should be noted. This controversy cannot be ignored just because it does not take place in a legal arena. That said, it certainly should not be presented in an unbalanced manner nor should it be blown out of proportion.'''

'''In hindsight, I certainly believe that I should have given a better source or more sources that documented the source of the controversy instead of portraying the controversy alone. I can understand how the above reaction could appropriately arise without enough compelling sources for legitimization. I didn't think that this would have been nitpicked and removed but rather amended and improved. I will try to re-amend this issue with more thoroughness and sources so that it does not come across inappropriately. If the revised version still has objections, please feel free to amend/remove it with an explanation, and the truth can proceed from there. Thank you for your concern. Any others are welcomed.'''