Talk:Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare

Problem Tags

Rationale for applying the following tags:

• WP:ADVERT -- reads like a promotional advertisement for the book you would find on its back cover, not encyclopedic work
• WP:POV -- as a result this article is not done from a neutral point of view but is promotional in nature Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler: What you made above is not really rationale for your tagging. You'd better say how you found these problems in this article. Per WP:NPOV, "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic" should be represented "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias." Could I ask you explain which "significant views" are not included in the article? Or could you please say exactly what parts are lacking neutrality and why? (be specific please and avoid general statements as above.)

On advert, can you say how this article reads like a promotional advertisement and how should it be changed? Mhhossein (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At first glance, the article is fine - succinct and accurate. The "Review" subsection, however, is 100% positive, which may or may not accurately represent the overall reception of the book (I haven't checked, so I can't say). I came to this Talk page looking for the reasoning behind tagging the whole article with POV/ADVERT, but all I found is a general definition of what the tags mean, and no explanation as to why they apply to this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic Thanks for your comment, I think the article is 100% neutral in spite of being 100% positive due to the fact that I consulted many sources before creating this page and I found no counter views! I'll be glad if you could add negative criticism if you can find one! Mhhossein (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The entire subsection "Quotes regarding the book and the author" qualifies as WP:ADVERT. If anything incorporate into "Reviews" in prose. Otherwise it is clearly promotional in nature -- reads like the back cover of a book where praise is generally listed. And violates WP:MOS as well. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The quotes are parts of the information found regarding the book. They are cited to reliable sources and deserve to be reflected here. I would add counter views if there were any. Can you exactly say what part part of MOS is violated by this article? Mhhossein (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler: It's not a constructive idea to keep on reverting without trying to make clarifications on the TP. No problem, please tell me based on which policy you are tagging the article? (pinging Xenophrenic to join the discussion.) Mhhossein (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

All the quotes are taken from the promotional page for the book of the publisher[1]! You don't get any more WP:ADVERT than that! Find reliable secondary sources, not affiliated ones that are promoting the sale of the book! Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

All those quotes exist here, which is an "independent, non-governmental and non-partisan website. [2]" Mhhossein (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for Plot Spoiler's feedback. Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the iranreview.org site may claim to be "independent, non-governmental and non-partisan website", but it doesn't say it doesn't reproduce press releases. And that's what the "book review" page clearly is; all you have to do is look at your article's justworldbooks citation to see that the cited iranreview.org page is an uncritical reprint of the identical publicity material from the book's publisher here and here. Even if you hadn't noticed the copying, although it may say it's a book review, a review would never include statements like At the center of the book will be the story of how documents alleged to have been stolen: "will be" is what someone hyping a book and intending to pique interest would say. Similarly, all of the quotes are clearly testimonials, not independent reviewers. In my opinion, if Plot Spoiler did add templates to this article about it having neutrality issues and about reading like an advertisement, they were (and still are) justified. The article needs a great deal of work to correct these issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, I agree with your observation that IranReview.org likely just reprinted the reviews about the book from the publisher's site. That doesn't, however, negate the fact that they are indeed testimonials and/or reviews about the subject of this Wikipedia article. We agree that those opinions were expressed by the individuals to whom they were attributed, and not fabricated or misquoted, correct? I disagree with your assertion that all of the quotes are clearly testimonials, not independent reviewers. A quick check assures me that the article by Ruebner is tagged as a "Book Review"; the article by Cacioppo is titled "A Review of Gareth Porter’s Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare"; the article by Waterbury is annotated as "Reviewed by John Waterbury".

The above mentioned quotes are all positive, obviously. I see where you have commented in a DYK discussion, I am troubled that there is not a single doubt or criticism included about the work—has it truly received universal approbation and acclaim? It is certainly curious, but not cause for slapping unsupported tags on articles. If more critical, or even negative, reviews have been brought forth but not incorporated in this article, then there would certainly be cause for concern and the article would need to be updated or tagged for neutrality or promotion. I've reviewed the discussion above and do not see where that is the case, so I have removed the unsupported tags until such sources are produced. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, I had been talking about the iranreview.org and justworldbooks.com quotes, not the others: indeed, the entire "Quotes regarding the book and the author" section is copied from the publisher's website's "Read the praise that Manufactured Crisis has gathered from experts and former practitioners" page. These are selected quotes, clearly assembled with promotion in mind; we have no idea what material was omitted that might have been less laudatory. I can't recall ever seeing a book article where these sorts of blurbs were included, and would strongly recommend the entire section be removed; so long as it remains, then in my opinion it's all the evidence that's needed for the advert template, since it's copied from a publisher's webpage advertising the book. (If there are independent sources that include a complete review by one of these people who were blurbed, then that independent review can certainly be incorporated.) BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear BlueMoonset: I don't know if you have tried to find a single negative point regarding the book, I did and the result was zero! I would like to refer you to a more complete list of praises here. To show you how valid and well documented the quotes are, I'd also like to refer you to this article. You can find more via a simple search. By the way, that you "can't recall ever seeing a book article where these sorts of blurbs were included" made you make strong recommendation for removing the section? Mhhossein (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the fact that the section reprints a handful of blurbs taken from the book's publicity is the reason I believe the Quotes subsection should be deleted: it violates a number of Wikipedia policies. That I hadn't seen such a section before was an indication, I thought, that there weren't any counterexamples indicating otherwise. I'm afraid that your arguments above cause me more concern than ever. To wit:

• A quick search found this review by Paul R. Pillar of the Middle East Policy Council. I don't know what biases this organization may have. (I also don't know what biases the other review sources may have.) While the first page of the review is complimentary, the second page is less so.
• The "more complete list of praises" is once again selective quotations, most from the publisher's publicity, and some of them are so clearly inappropriate I wonder that you consider this worth citing. The book's publisher? Kickstarter.com? Don't forget that Amazon is in the business of selling books, so they have a COI when it comes to book blurbs.
• You refer me to larouchepac.com as strong evidence that the quotes are "valid and well documented"? Do you know anything about Lyndon LaRouche, his history, and his fringe politics? Take a look at Worldwide LaRouche Youth Movement#LaRouche PAC; this is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source, and it's troubling that you are using it to attempt to bolster your argument.

Since you don't seem to be willing to credit my contentions about the article with regard to the overuse of publicity quotes and other issues, I'm going to ping Nikkimaria to comment on the quote usage and Crisco 1492 on the issue of neutrality (though each are welcome to comment on both issues). I honestly don't expect them to say anything that would cause a change in my assessment of your DYK nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: I found your comment fair enough and thanks for introducing the review by Paul R. Pillar. I think the review is moving on the middle line of criticism (and on some points leaning toward negative points), an approach which attracts the readers. Although I had no idea how biased "Lyndon LaRouche" can be and I'm not ignoring your point, I should tell you by referring to that source I was trying to let you know that the quotes listed there are not fabricated (as you can see here and here). Yes, some of them may have WP:COI, but I'm not arguing based on what AMAZON or KICKSTARTER.COM say. The very fact that using such quotes make the article a quote farm is far more convincing and applicable, I think. But the question remains that, if reliable sources are found for the quotes, are your arguments still valid? Mhhossein (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The overuse of quotes in this case is not only a style or POV problem, it's a potential NFC issue. Thus, even if you believe BlueMoonset's points are completely offbase, this usage is still not permissible. And to be clear, I largely agree with BlueMoonset with regards to the other reasons why this section is problematic. Publicity quotes of this type are usually solicited and often selectively edited. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Nikkimaria: How about incorporating them into the text using secondary reliable sources, instead of leaving them in a separate section? Mhhossein (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

That would definitely be better, but you'd still need to reduce them. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. Let's see what BlueMoonset, Xenophrenic and Plot Spoiler think. Mhhossein (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I think what Nikkimaria is saying is that if you find a secondary reliable source with the full original review that the publicity quotes were pulled from, that would be better, and I agree. However, if the source is simply reprinting the quotes originally supplied at justworldbooks.com, then their usage in the article remains problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree w/ BlueMoonset. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'm trying to fix the mentioned points. Mhhossein (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: Could you please take a look at the article? Mhhossein (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Mhhossein, for converting the review commentary from block-quotes into prose. I see you also provided fuller, secondary sources for many of those expressed opinions. The synopsis could probably use a little more expansion just as a matter of thoroughness, but there are no violations of MOS, NFC or neutrality. I understand what you mean when you say you had difficulty locating negative reviews about the book. I was able to locate the following sources (ranging from high quality to poor quality), but none get very negative, which was unexpected considering the subject matter.

• Article in Foreign Policy Association - Porter is interviewed about the book
• Article in The Nation by Porter - Porter expands on a few of the points he makes in his book
• Book Review by Peter Jenkins - a British career diplomat for 33 years, Cambridge and Harvard academic, and specialist in global economic and security issues; UK Ambassador to the IAEA and UN (Vienna)
• Book Review by Edward S. Herman - Media analyst and professor emeritus of finance and political economy
• Article on Iran Nukes and Book Review by Farhang Jahanpour - Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research Associate Professor; part-time tutor in the Department of Continuing Education at the University of Oxford; member of Kellogg College
• Book Review by Jack Glore - Political Science and History undergrad
• Book Review by Dr. Ludwig Watzal - journalist, editor and blogger in Bonn, Germany
• Book Review by Shane Smith - freelance writer, economics major
• Book Review by Maha Salah - Editor and translator at Middle East Monitor
• Book Review by Andrew Stimson - director of the AET Book Club, a project of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is a dubious, tendentious work. It's no surprise it's "universally" acclaimed by other individuals of the same political stripe (and largely ignored by reliable media sources). Presents a severe NPOV issue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Xenophrenic. Do you want me to insert materials from those sources? By the way, thanks for introducing those valuable sources. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler: I don't think the book is "largely ignored by reliable media sources," and I would not analyse the work in this manner when many high ranking officials and experts have admired it. Mhhossein (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I've just done a significant edit to the Reception section. The Blix, Fuller, and Cole sections were removed because they were entirely dependent on the quotes from Just World Books, which were used verbatim in the new sources—as Nikkimaria noted, such quotes "are usually solicited and often selectively edited". Anything by Beeman could safely be used since his own article was available, so long as it was what he wrote there. I've also gone through and fixed some close paraphrasing in the section, mostly by adding quotes to phrases incorporated from the sources, and buffed up the prose a bit. The Uzi Eilam paragraph could perhaps use a bit more work—"backed" implied to me that Eilam was in some way a backer of the book, whereas the context is clear that Eilam's information and contentions could be seen as reinforcing Porter's own research and conclusions. Finally, Pillar's caveats go beyond the one aspect, so perhaps another sentence is in order to summarize one of the broader considerations. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome BlueMoonset and thanks for your edits. As you see I'm not against removing the quotes by Fuller and Cole. However, I'm still doubtful if you could remove the quotation by Hans Blix, considering the fact that this article by Ray McGovern is presenting much more info than that of the publisher's. In fact, I can't understand why you deleted that secondary source? Mhhossein (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Puffery

@Xenophrenic and BlueMoonset: Is it really puffery? Mhhossein (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Basic facts which convey the relevance of an individual to the article subject matter is not 'puffery'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenophrenic (talk • contribs) 10:17, 9 February 2016‎ (UTC)

DYK concerns

BlueMoonset: Do you think the concerns presented on the DYK nomination page are addressed now? Mhhossein (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, I think you went a very long way to addressing them—thanks for your hard work. I've just made an edit that I think gives better balance to Pillar's concerns while making sure the various quotes are all cited. I also borrowed from Pillar's own article's lede for a slightly recast description of his career (and a cite for same). So far as I'm concerned, the promo aspects have been dealt with, and absent any other reliable source with concerns about the book, I think having now two points about issues from Pillar gives an appropriate level of balance. Given how much the article has changed since the earlier review, there should be a recheck done, and by someone who hasn't been as involved as I have. I'm about to go post as much to the review page. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: You're welcome. I think the article is much better now, and it took me hours to fix the concerned problems. Thanks for your further edits. Mhhossein (talk) 12:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304085619/http://www.brookings.edu/experts/pillarp?view=bio to http://www.brookings.edu/experts/pillarp?view=bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820210146/http://justworldbooks.com/blog/gareth-porter-adds-timely-facts-realism-to-irannuclear-discussion/ to http://justworldbooks.com/blog/gareth-porter-adds-timely-facts-realism-to-irannuclear-discussion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

wow, this reads almost like a hagiography. A dozen reviews, with not a single word of criticism, when a quick google search reveals dozens of negative commentary. I'll shortly begin trying to make this into an actual encyclopedia article about the book, rather than a PR piece. Attack Ramon (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Attack Ramon: The article is well written and encyclopedic. It has appeared on the main page, after it was reviewed by Jolly Janner, and various users have edited it (see this discussion). You'd better discuss your reforms before adding those "dozens of negative commentaries". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I am shocked that something las awfully one-sided as this was on the main page. Perhaps they took you at your word that you could not find any negative comment. But no, I don't need to discuss anything with you before adding any well-sourced material. And BTW, I see there was similar objections to structure when you first wrote it two years ago, and they weren't addressed. Or perhaps it was even worse back then. Attack Ramon (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)