Talk:Mohammad Marandi

AntiIranprop

This is an anti-Iranian propaganda piece written by an angry and unstable student named Parchizadeh.

- Totally agree --simiyachaq (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Seted Mohammad Marandi.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Seted Mohammad Marandi.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing

This article contains blatant POV-pushing and personal opinion, but I'm reluctant to do anything myself as I am trying to control some edit-warring and don't want to become involved in the content dispute - but if anyone could improve it, that would be great -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Seyed_Mohammad_Marandi to little effect. That's where I stumbled across it. I waited a while to see if things improved but sadly not. I started making a few clean up edits yesterday. Oddly they were reverted by one of the editors you blocked despite them apparently thinking they were okay... It's all a bit of a mess and could do with some editors who don't care about Seyed Mohammad Marandi. I'll try to go through the article when I get a chance. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks - meanwhile, I'll keep the block tool handy for any resumption of the edit-war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I've upped the block to indefinite due to repeated outing after you had warned him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

disputed content about Parchizadeh

content

Reza Parchizadeh of Örebro University has called him a "spin doctor"; and in an open letter has accused him of being one of the key architects of the Second Cultural Revolution in Iran under the pretext of the Islamization of Universities.

• 1 - http://gjnetwork.ning.com/profile/RezaParchizadeh - The GJN Community

• This is not a wikipedia reliable source and is the only time in the whole of the english wikipedia that it appears. EL usage en wikipedia

• 2 - http://radiokoocheh.com/article/117124 - Globalization and Media Development: A Promise of or a Menace to Civil Society?

• This again - self published or something , no assertion of independent notability. The external http://radiokoocheh.com/ - radiokoocheh, apart from this desired usage, is not used on the whole of the english wikipedia - EL usage on the english wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• 3 - http://www.tabarzin.com/ - Open Letter to Seyyed Mohammad Marandi

• Speaks for itself - self published opinions of a not wikipedia notable person in an external that is not used at all on the english wikipedia project. Youreallycan (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As others have mentioned , there is a conflict of interest at this article and this disputed content on investigation has not the quality of sourcing or independent notability that is required for critical opinionated commentary on en wikipedia WP:BLP articles. The user Timelesstune that is edit warring to keep the not notable content about a not notable person was the creator of a BLP about that person that was described as a promotional resume. Youreallycan (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I needed that specific source to further corroborate the facts. As far as it is logically maintained that the practice of the subject of the article with regard to the presentation of events is not in accordance with reality, it is not that important that one of the sources be left out. After all, this whole project is about telling the truth. Timelesstune (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I just pointed out on your Talk page, the project is *not* about truth - it is about reliably sourced verifiability and notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article is covered by WP:BLP so complying with WP:RS is absolutely essential. One of the problems with this article is the citation format. It's not obvious by just looking at the references what they are. For example, the reference that is described as a CNN interview looks like its a copyright violation. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have noticed, YouTube has its own copyright regulations, just like Wikipedia. This interview has been on YouTube for around three years now. How come they haven't deleted it yet if it is copyright material? Timelesstune (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There are many you tube uploads that are copyright violations that they don't deal with, but we have a duty to investigate and deal with them according to our investigations - some of such investigating is simple such as - a CBS news show uploaded by user bigharrythelamb - CBS has its own official youtube identity and clearly harry is not the owner of the copyright and as such his upload is unofficial and a copyright violation. Youreallycan (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As Youreallycan says, if a news video from the BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN etc is not hosted on the official channel it will be a copyright violation. See WP:YOUTUBE. Editors who add links to copyright violations can be blocked so you need to careful about the source of the videos used as references. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I could use a reliable "mirror website". They sure have the right to present the material. Look at [1] and [2], for example, and tell me if it is alright. Timelesstune (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The picture from guernicamag.com

Firefox reports the security tags of the website as "This website does not supply ownership information." Isn't it enough?--Lord'sServant (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No. All published material is considered copyrighted unless is it explicitly released under a license that is at least as free as Wikipedia's Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Everything loaded to Commons must be either in the public domain or under a free license, see commons:Commons:FAQ#Copyright_questions. The image has been used by Guernica in 2008 here and later by PressTV here. Both sites say their content is covered by copyright. Without information to show that the image can be used in Commons it will be automatically deleted one week after it was loaded. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How about a snapshot? I got chapters of the Raz program broadcasted from IRIB that analyzed Mainstream Media and their kind of interviews, and views part of the GPS program (by Farid Zakaria) on CNN. It is not copyrighted by IRIB. It is probably not copyrighted by anyone else(like CNN). Is it?--Lord'sServant (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, even screenshots will be under copyright - presumably of whoever produced the original program they were taken from -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So, how about a snapshot of Marandi in the Raz itself? I'm sure IRIB is not claiming any copyright for things like this. They will be even thankful.--Lord'sServant (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you cannot use *any* image, wherever you got it from, unless the copyright owner has explicitly released it for use. There is no "claiming copyright" needed to own copyright - whoever made the image automatically legally owns it and Wikipedia cannot use it if it is not properly released. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems I didn't explain correctly. First, I should explain the status. The organizations that apply copyright law in most of the countries(such as the FBI) don't have the power to apply that in Iran. Iran applies copyright for domestic products, and for domestic or international trademarks, when claimed. IRIB and CD distributing companies (most of the time!!) buy foreign contents, and domestic products are unprotected outside Iran if they're not registered there.

So Iran belongs to another copyright zone. Since most computers in Iran work on Windows platform, and it's hard for people to earn money in Rials and pay that expensive price in Dollars, Iran is waiting for a "National OS Project" - which is supposed to be an efficient Linux distro - to complete, and has not joined World Trade Organization, to avoid being compelled to apply Windows' copyright(Compel people to pay that, or leave them with an OS they're not familiar yet).

Films and series are copyrighted. Other kinds of programs are not, unless used for commercial purpose, but even if so, it's odd that they get claimed. But programs like "Raz" are not copyrighted at all, and are considered quite positive. I'm sure I can make a thousand copies of all DVDs of the program, and either nobody will mind, or will be thankful.--Lord'sServant (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you're saying there are different copyright laws applicable and we are not covered by Wikipedia's general copyright policies in this case, then you'd need a copyright expert's opinion. User:Moonriddengirl is probably the one to ask, so I'll drop her a note -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. :) This is a pretty big gray area on Wikipedia at the moment, I'm afraid. First, regardless of Iranian law, we are bound by US law. So, you say that IRIB buys foreign contents. The first question would be where they acquired the snapshot in question. Iran may not recognize the copyright of "foreign contents", but that won't have any bearing here. We do. Even if they purchased a license to publish the picture, that wouldn't necessarily abrogate the rights of the photographer (or, if he had transferred them, the agency). If the content is claimed under copyright elsewhere, the status in Iran will not matter to us.

If it's not claimed under copyright elsewhere, the status in Iran may matter. While we are not legally bound to honor Iranian copyright, at this point the only thing policy says about it is this: "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States." Whether or not this is the proper approach is currently under community review at WT:C, but it has not been settled. Until it is, our guidance on these matters is here, and it says that if the content is copyrighted in Iran, we cannot use it except under WP:NFC.

For that reason, you would have to be able to prove, not merely assert, that it is not copyrighted in Iran. IRIB does claim copyright, generally, according to their website. According to Intellectual property in Iran, copyright there governs "Audio-visual works for stage or screen performances or for broadcasting by radio and television, irrespective of the way they are written, recorded or broadcast." According to the WIPO translation of the law (here) this seems to be accurate. I'm not sure the source you use in claiming that "Films and series are copyrighted. Other kinds of programs are not, unless used for commercial purpose...", but the actual law doesn't seem to say that. Even if it is not common to prosecute for infringement of non-commercial programming, we would need to follow the law.

At this point, for any image taken from a publication in Iran, it seems we would need the following:

• Information on who made the image and where it was published.
• Verifiable evidence that it is not subject to copyright or a valid fair use rationale.

If the community discussion resolves that Wikipedia will ignore Iranian copyright, the situation will change, although we will still need information on the origin of the image. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, there is lots of information I didn't knew at all. But I didn't mean "Films and series are copyrighted. Other kinds of programs are not, unless used for commercial purpose" to be the law. I just wanted to say, some things ARE copyrighted, and some other things are not made for making money(since IRIB is state TV) and they don't limit their use, unless this is done by a major commercial action(which is for example, broadcasting by some TV in another country).

But all those sentences was there, for me to later say "But programs like Raz are not copyrighted at all, and are considered quite positive." to stress the difference.

This chapter of Raz program is about analyzing Mainstream Media, and their sort of interviewing. Marandi is there to explain some experiences he'd have with Mainstream Media(with bringing examples of CNN and BBC), and the way they lie and censor. They will be really happy if anyone spreads what they want to say to the world. They founded PressTV for that. I don't know how to bring "Verifiable evidence" (and it needs more time, than the benefit of one picture from Professor Marandi on Wikipedia, which can be found easily on the net) but I'm 100% sure you're quite welcome to copy all programs like Raz. A frame of what IRIB Channel 4 camera got, is inarguable.

I had seen dear User: Boing! said Zebedee in "Islamic Golden Age" page, which after reading parts of it, steam came out of my head. Again, I went through the links you'd mentioned, and I got to pages like "Islamic Revolution", "Imam Khomeini" or "Iran-Iraq War" and I drowned in the flooding of clueless accusations in them. As Marandi had said in one of his interviews: "By dehumanizing others these people are aiding the neocons and other forces of darkness to justify more war, more suffering, and more destruction." Marandi's picture is not that important. There is much more important to do.

For the articles to become free of unanswered accusations and references to reference-less books, Wikipedia should provide a facility meant for discussion, so that articles are not written like an ordinary text. With a tidy discussion, everyone has the chance to hear everything, and choose the best.

And excuse me if I was troublesome for you. Thanks again to both of you.--Lord'sServant (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing troublesome about checking to see if an image is usable. :) I'm wish that 100% sure worked for us, but unfortunately it doesn't. Copyright is a legal matter, and we must have a legally reliable source to verify that the content is not under copyright. The only law we have right now - the one I linked above - does not offer exceptions. It can be surprising what people are willing to share and in what form; for instance, I am myself surprised that the United Nations claims copyright on its content. We can't make assumptions about what they are willing to share. You can ask them what they are willing to share; see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. But if they acquire content from miscellaneous sources, that can also be a problem. If they don't own the content, they can't give us permission to use it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help.--Lord'sServant (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Template

This article needs some serious NPOV cleanup, due to euphemistic-type phrasing like this: "pacification of the Iranian domestic demonstrations" Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)