Talk:Iran Experts Initiative

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 29 September 2023 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs). Espionage Low‑importance Iran Experts Initiative is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Iran Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article used very questionable sources; I have removed/replaced them where I could. Someone who actually likes American politics (perhaps out of sheer masochism) should (re)write it. I have tried to make some improvements but I suck at that kinda stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Are there any sources in the article that you find questionable? If yes, which ones? Ivegut (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivegut: Iran International is not some unbiased reliable source; if I receive 250 million USD from MbS I will most certainly attack his enemies and praise him and his friends (MbS call me I accept paypal! I'll even shill for a meagre 150 million USD). Using a Saudi-funded propaganda outlet to report on Iranian propaganda is... not great.

I think this article presents a politically motivated narrative as fact. What we have is a bunch of accusations. What we don't have is reliable sources saying that this is all true. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivegut Also note that the Semafor source is not much better, because it is Jay Solomon. You know, this guy. Polygnotus (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantics's /ideas/ is an opinion column, not actual reporting. See https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ & https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/316607/atlantic-taps-columnists-for-new-ideas-section.html That doesn't necessarily mean that all opinions are incorrect, but they are not necessarily WP:RS. And perhaps unsurprisingly Graeme Wood has been criticized for his position on MbS...[1][2][3][4] Polygnotus (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Sun is not fake news, but a very partisan source which I wouldn't trust in the context of US politics. National Review is also strongly ideological. Polygnotus (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

armedservices.house.gov uses headlines like Rogers: Democrats’ Shutdown Hurts Our Troops and Weakens National Security. Polygnotus (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]