Comments:Wikinews interviews Amir Abbas Fakhravar about Iranian nuclear intentions

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

This news article is heavily slanted without balancing the article with POVs from other sources.

Just to note here what we've been saying on the talk page:

This is an interview. We're reporting factually that this person said these things. The interviewee may be saying slanted things, but our article just reports what was said. This is kind of the essence of WN:NPOV.

No you are not.

"Its claims over nuclear enrichment are for a nuclear power program, although this requires 5% enrichment as opposed to the 20% enrichment level they claim the right to pursue which is more commonly used in nuclear bombs."

20% is not weapons grade.

There is discussion on-going about what to do about that sentence, yes — although frankly the "20% is not weapons grade" is trivial, a choice-of-preposition issue; the thing about the sentence that may occasion a {{correction}} (investigation ongoing) is something far more subtle.

What's really saddening is that while we slipped up a little on a factual detail in the intro, those objecting to it do not exhibit an ontological distinction between fact and opinion. (Emphasis on exhibit; one can only directly observe what is said, not what is thought.) The objections don't come across as having an interest in factual accuracy; they come across as seeking to discredit other, unproblematic facts in the article by association.

This is an interview. We are clearly presenting what the interviewee said as having been said by the interviewee, rather that being necessarily "true". The distinction matters between saying something is true, and clearly presenting it as something that someone else said is true.

Ditto this. That a correction over a minor detail that was incorrect because of another trusted source is something that seems rather trivial and easily addressed, but the focus on it gives the larger appearance of trying to discredit the opinions of the subject interviewed despite the fact that their words are clearly being defined as their opinions and not those of the reporter.

Why does it qualify for the description 'news article'? What news does it attempt to convey? We already know Iran has a nuclear program, and the article says nothing evidential concerning it. It merely expresses the writer's opinion on 'established' fact so as to 'establish' en passant an untruth, viz the passage concerning Israel "The regime expresses desire to annihilate Israel almost daily". Pure assertion. I wonder who 'the regime' is? Is it the Government of Iran? Or are we meant to suppoose it is the Government of Iran?

Also there are perfect examples of leading questions from wikinews.

I live in poison ivy country. Some people claim they're so allergic to the stuff they'll come down with a case even if they only get within a few dozen feet of it. But it generally turns out those people don't know what poison ivy looks like.

Similarly, there's a positive correlation between people who make accusations of bias against anything that doesn't cater to their opinions, and people who don't know what bias looks like.