Talk:Hooman Majd

At WP:BLP/I

Please see this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Tweet

This is not considered a fact as the subject clearly denies making the tweet and there is no independent verifiable investigation or verdict on this matter, and Mrs. Nazanin Afshin-Jam has herself said that she can't verify it as fact, so it's basically an allegation made by the National Post. Therefore, I've changed the title to "Tweet Allegation" in line with our core policy of WP:NPOV. Given the Tabloid nature of National Post, and the relevant policies on WP:Weight and WP:COAT, I also propose shortening the section into one summarized line as well. Kurdo777 (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

What is not considered a fact? That there was a tweet? No the tweet is a fact. What is disputed is whether Majd made the tweet. He denies it.

Did the National Post say he did make the tweet? That Majd is lying? No. They may imply they don't believe him but they quote his denial.

Please make yourself clear before making accusations. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Checking to see if it was only the National Post that found the tweet newsworthy, I found this in the Huffington Post:

Various Twitter users, however, have argued that the fact the tweet originated from the same application regularly used by Mahd and that it was so quickly deleted, only to be followed by more tweets about Afshin-Jam, suggests the account was not hacked. You can see the Twitter debate in the slideshow at the bottom of this story. Nazanin Afshin-Jam Target Of Offensive Tweet, Hooman Majd Blames Hackers

I propose we add it to the article.--BoogaLouie (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over “sometimes sympathetic communicator”

This now deleted edit was added to the lead
(He has been described as a “sometimes sympathetic communicator” of the Iranian government's positions.)
by yours truly and had the effect of setting of Kurdo reporting me to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and making threats, so for the record I thought I should explain why I added it.

It's true the comment is not a hard fact (although its far from "essentially calling him an agent of the Iranian regime", as Kurdo alleged!) but I felt that it would be good to distinguish Majd from all the other Iranian writers and activists in the west who are not at all sympathetic to the regime. In short I thought it was a useful, important distinguishing feature of Majd, not some way of making his life difficult. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A Huffington Post article (mentioned above) said this about Majd:

`The Amazon listing for his most recent book, "The Ayatollahs' Democracy. An Iranian Challenge", touts his [Majd's] "privileged access to the Iranian power elite."` (Nazanin Afshin-Jam Target Of Offensive Tweet, Hooman Majd Blames Hackers)

While the article quoting this is not favorable to Majd, the source Huffington Post not known as a neocon or pro-Zionist I don't think!, and the original source (Amazon) can not be accused of wanting to make him look bad. Thus I think using some or all of the quote in the lead would follow WP:BLP guidelines about writing "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• The WP:Lead of a WP:BLP is not a place for quotes of any kind, speculations, generalizations and subjective claims about a subject. The lead is suppose to be summery of undisputed objective facts. Kurdo777 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Such an authoritative statement! Yet checking the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:Lead project pages (using control f to search) I couldn't find the words "speculation", "generalization", "subjective", "facts", 'objective" "quotes" or "claims" mentioned at all!

The Wikipedia:Lead#Biographies_of_living_persons does say "When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm: always pay scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves." --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC) BoogaLouie (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edits

Because of the controversy over this issue I'm not going to follow Wikipedia:Be bold but put my proposed changes on the talk page. Changes are in italics

• Current writing:

Tweet allegation

In July 2012 a tweet from Majd's Twitter account was made about Iranian-born Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a human rights advocate and the wife of Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay. The tweet read: “F—ing a Canadian minister doesn’t make you Canadian, azizam. Come back to papa …” Majd has denied making it, and in a later public tweet directed at Afshin-Jam Majd said his account had been hacked: “@NazaninAJ A recent series of tweets were made in my name as a result of a hack. Not my words, and tweets have been removed.” Before the tweet Afshin-Jam had been calling on the Canadian government and the Canadian Assembly of First Nations to cut diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Afshin-Jam Majd described the matter as serious but added that “unless I can verify exactly who sent it, I can’t really comment.”

• Proposed change:

Tweet controversy

In July 2012 a tweet from Majd's Twitter account was made about Iranian-born Nazanin Afshin-Jam, a human rights advocate and the wife of Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay. The tweet read: “F—ing a Canadian minister doesn’t make you Canadian, azizam. Come back to papa …” Majd has denied making it, and in a later public tweet directed at Afshin-Jam Majd said his account had been hacked: “@NazaninAJ A recent series of tweets were made in my name as a result of a hack. Not my words, and tweets have been removed.” Before the tweet Afshin-Jam had been calling on the Canadian government and the Canadian Assembly of First Nations to cut diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Afshin-Jam Majd described the matter as serious but added that “unless I can verify exactly who sent it, I can’t really comment.”

The Huffington Post notes various twitter users as arguing that "the fact the tweet originated from the same application regularly used by Mahd and that it was so quickly deleted, only to be followed by more tweets about Afshin-Jam, suggests the account was not hacked". --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• The "not hacked" bit is necessary to establish why the bit is even in the biography. People doubt Majd's assertion that his account was hacked. I think the addition is good. Binksternet (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(I will be off the grid and unable to respond until about August 9 --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC))

• Opposed: "Allegation" is the right word here, in line with WP:NPOV. It's not an established fact, there is no independent verifiable investigation or verdict on this matter (General statements like "twitter users say" which are not attributed to a named expert, do not count), and Mrs. Nazanin Afshin-Jam, herself, had said that she can't verify the claim as as fact. I was actually going propose shortening the whole paragraph dedicated to an allegation, into one short summarized line, per WP:Weight and WP:COAT. Kurdo777 (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Again (like above) you are vague on the "allegation" being made. You could say Huff Post is questioning how Majd could have been hacked. That's different from making an allegation.

An allegation would be saying something like "[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hooman_Majd A couple of editors are trying to insert right-wing/neo-con libelous statements against a notable Iranian-American scholar]" --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

And I thought your plan to shorten the the paragraph was based on the source of the story being the "neocon" National Post? Now we have a very non-neocon source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I cant say I am feeling too great about something that has the huffington post as a source, which in itself is using 'Twitter users' as a source - I dont believe that would pass at RSN. (If it did pass as a reliable source given its content, I will withdraw any objection) Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The Huffington Post notes various twitter users[2] as arguing [...] No, HuffPo didn't say this. Michael Bolen said this, in HuffPo Canada. And Bolen didn't note it in anything that my browser renders as a "slideshow of tweets"; instead, it's a short article illustrated by tweets. (However, I've set up my browser to ignore anything that looks like an ad, so I may be missing something.) ¶ Yes, HuffPo Canada has Bolen say that various twitter (capitalized, "Twitter"?) users argued that blah blah. Bolen doesn't then even start to evaluate these claims. Well, search engine hits for Bolen suggests that his thing is political gossip, not technology; so I wouldn't expect him to evaluate the claims. However, he might have consulted somebody with expert knowledge, yet he didn't. So you want to have WP report not what HuffPo said but what unspecified tweeters said, as uncritically repeated by Bolen. This is underwhelming. ¶ This tweet being discussed here was/is grossly offensive, and I certainly wouldn't defend it; but the sad fact is that offensiveness and miscellaneous idiocy is endemic in Twitter, or anyway such is the impression I get from the news sources that I normally read. (I don't normally read HuffPo Canada, but here's another story from HuffPo Canada of Canadian political Twitter idiocy.) ¶ However malodorous, this still seems to be a molehill. Unless/until it's covered in more (level-headed) periodicals. -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well we can change the wording to "Michael Bolen in Huffington Post Canada notes various twitter users ..." The tweet story has been covered in National Post (and other Postmedia outlets), HuffPost Canada, and Agence France Press --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)