Template:Did you know nominations/Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 08:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare edit
... that Gareth Porter, American award-winning author and policy analyst, demonstrates in his Manufactured Crisis that allegation of Iran’s attempts for building nuclear weapons are fabricated by Israel and the United States?
- Reviewed: Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra
- ALT1 ... that the American policy analyst Gareth Porter, argues in his Manufactured Crisis that allegations of Iran's attempts to build nuclear weapons have been fabricated by Israel and the United States?
Created by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 20:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC).
- Comment only I've added an ALT1. No need to link common terms, per WP:OVERLINK. The phrase "award-winning" is puffery, and "demonstrates" is almost certainly overstating the case. Edwardx (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- As I've stated on the talk page of this subject, I believe the article suffers from WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT issues. It reads like the promotional back cover of a book (and it's very troubling that this editor would think it appropriate to propose a hook with such promotional language as "award-winning author and policy analyst." Fundamentally violates WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, which this editor should review carefully and internalize). The author Gareth Porter is arguably fringe in certain respects for his views on this subject (Redacted) . The article should not falsely reflect that the book is some universally acclaimed work (which it is not). Plot Spoiler (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I have struck the original hook due to issues raised and the fact that it is well above the maximum length allowed at DYK. Having looked at the article, I am troubled that there is not a single doubt or criticism included about the work—has it truly received universal approbation and acclaim? But more troubling is the treatment of iranreview.org as an independent site, when the cited page is clearly just an uncritical reprint of the identical publicity material at the book's publisher here and here. This article needs a great deal of work, if not an entire rewrite, before it can qualify for DYK. There's far too much in the way of blockquotes (well beyond fair use) and not enough in the editor's own words, and I have to concur with Plot Spoiler's citing of NPOV, with the additional concern of WP:PROMO, number 5, though that may be what was meant by ADVERT. Remember, both hook and article must be neutral to qualify for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset: I think otherwise. However we'd better keep the discussion on the article talk page. Mhhossein (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed, now that the article has undergone an extensive revision such that at least half of it is new material. The issues I was concerned about have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on extensive rewrite, issues have been addressed. ALT1 hook 195 chars, article long enough. Good to go. Montanabw(talk) 21:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The last paragraph of reception is almost exclusively written by Paul R. Pillar. This is not consistent with our policy on copyright violations. This has been previously brought up by BlueMoonset, so it is dissapointing to see it has not been resolved. Jolly Ω Janner 04:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jolly Janner, this may in part be my fault. I added the last two sentences, which was intended to get more balance overall, since Pillar's review offers the only caveats about the book in the article, but I guess I relied too much on his own words. Let me go back and see what I can do about paraphrasing some of that material, because I think it's important to include. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, done. Please check to make sure that I haven't left any close paraphrasing in my wake; I reduced the quoting in the entire Pillar paragraph, not just the sentences I had added. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- This paragraph has been written well now. However, the rest of the paragraphs suffer from similar problems. I'm not sure on the extent to which quotations can claim fair-use, but before you edited that paragraph would probably not be okay and its current condition is definitely okay. Further more, the following sentences are copied word for word and aren't even quotations: "Shmuel Meir, a research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and former researcher at the intelligence branch of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the strategic unit of the IDF’s Planning Department" I suppose it's not the worst case I've seen, since it's mostly technical terms. The lack of attempt to rephrase prose is troubling though. I don't know if calling for a third opinion on the matter is best here. I certainly don't feel comfortable promoting it even if the above phrase was fixed. Jolly Ω Janner 07:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jolly: That's good that you're concerned about those problems, but I think your objections are valid only when you specifically mention the problems, as you did on the "Shmuel Meir" sentence (and I tried to make some changes). What remains are some properly attributed quotes. So, you'd better tell us what else is problematic if the "above phrase was fixed". Actually, I'm trying to ask you refrain from making general comments. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, below is a list of quotes that I think may be too long and would be better put into one's own words. I also found a few statistics. 62% of the charachter count paragraph 2, reception is quoted material; 39% for paragraph 3; and 51% for paragraph 4. Our policy on using quotes is simple "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Exceptions are allowed in the form of "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." most important, I think as all of these quotes can be paraphrased they are not needed to establish context. Jolly Ω Janner
- "The risk for Israel and the United States, of course, is that they might have to go to war to confront a threat that, Porter alleges, they know does not exist."
- "the only journalist and investigator in the world who read, with an unbiased eye, all the IAEA reports and the American intelligence reports of the last several decades regarding the Iranian issue"
- "all interested in understanding how we arrived at the Iranian nuclear crisis, and the 'attack scenarios', and invented facts and intelligence reports whose purpose was to support the preconceptions"
- "open source documentation and revealed through in-depth interviews with key players"
- "because there is as much disinformation as there is information. There was a book published by Gareth Porter in the U.S. some time ago about the whole Iranian affair, and, well, he certainly maintains that much of the evidence that was given to the IAEA was really cooked, was not authentic. And I wouldn't be at all surprised."
- "When security organizations do not shy away from assassinating nuclear scientists we can take it for certain that they do not for a moment hesitate to circulate false evidence."
- Jolly Janner: Thanks for doing such a statistical work. So, do you think the "quotes dominate the article"? Is it not better if we consider that this section is on "reception" which naturally contains quotes from various figures? In my opinion, some of the quotes lose their originality if we try to paraphrase them. What do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, below is a list of quotes that I think may be too long and would be better put into one's own words. I also found a few statistics. 62% of the charachter count paragraph 2, reception is quoted material; 39% for paragraph 3; and 51% for paragraph 4. Our policy on using quotes is simple "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." Exceptions are allowed in the form of "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." most important, I think as all of these quotes can be paraphrased they are not needed to establish context. Jolly Ω Janner
- Jolly: That's good that you're concerned about those problems, but I think your objections are valid only when you specifically mention the problems, as you did on the "Shmuel Meir" sentence (and I tried to make some changes). What remains are some properly attributed quotes. So, you'd better tell us what else is problematic if the "above phrase was fixed". Actually, I'm trying to ask you refrain from making general comments. Thanks. Mhhossein (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- This paragraph has been written well now. However, the rest of the paragraphs suffer from similar problems. I'm not sure on the extent to which quotations can claim fair-use, but before you edited that paragraph would probably not be okay and its current condition is definitely okay. Further more, the following sentences are copied word for word and aren't even quotations: "Shmuel Meir, a research fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University and former researcher at the intelligence branch of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the strategic unit of the IDF’s Planning Department" I suppose it's not the worst case I've seen, since it's mostly technical terms. The lack of attempt to rephrase prose is troubling though. I don't know if calling for a third opinion on the matter is best here. I certainly don't feel comfortable promoting it even if the above phrase was fixed. Jolly Ω Janner 07:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the use of quotations, our policies are indeed simple in some cases, but quite vague in others, allowing for a considerable range in editor discretion. For example, in this very old version of the article, editors were rightly concerned about the section devoted just to quotes. Our policy specifically recommends: "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section." That has since been corrected. In some instances, quotations are actually recommended over text, such as "when dealing with a controversial subject ... Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Wikipedia'. In my personal opinion, the subject matter might qualify as "controversial", especially the subjects of disinformation, assassination of scientists, fabricating evidence, etc., and I'm not so sure we should be risking a lot of paraphrasing over the more reliable direct quotation of those individuals. Note that on length and quantity of quotations our policy advises, Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit, but quotes should not dominate the article. And while "extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited", the quotes in question do not "comprise a substantial portion" of the works from which they were copied. Just my opinion, of course. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Xenophrenic and I should thank him for his useful tip. Anyway, I think we'd better see what BlueMoonset thinks. Mhhossein (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I've just asked Nikkimaria what she thinks. She's the person I go to for questions on quotations and close paraphrasing on DYK nominations, and also frequently checks such noms for such issues once they are promoted to prep; she also commented on the article's talk page when we were discussing such issues there. I'll happily defer to her in this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- My original concern was largely based on NFC and overuse of quotes in that regard. Looking at the article now, that's not the issue now, it's rather a stylistic one - and while I agree with Jolly Janner that several of the quotes could easily be incorporated as paraphrased text (and that would be my preference), we're past the point where they must. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on the opinions of others, I now feel comfortable that the extent to the use of quotations does not infringe copyright concerns for DYK standards. Thanks to everyone involved. I have now learned more about where to draw the line. I have reinstated a tick, as per Montanabw, as all my concerned are no longer present. Jolly Ω Janner 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- My original concern was largely based on NFC and overuse of quotes in that regard. Looking at the article now, that's not the issue now, it's rather a stylistic one - and while I agree with Jolly Janner that several of the quotes could easily be incorporated as paraphrased text (and that would be my preference), we're past the point where they must. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I've just asked Nikkimaria what she thinks. She's the person I go to for questions on quotations and close paraphrasing on DYK nominations, and also frequently checks such noms for such issues once they are promoted to prep; she also commented on the article's talk page when we were discussing such issues there. I'll happily defer to her in this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)