This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a
stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
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 articles
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)reply
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.
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
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)reply
A Huffington Post article (mentioned above) said this about Majd:
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.[1]
Afshin-Jam Majd described the matter as serious but added that “unless I can verify exactly who sent it, I can’t really comment.”[1]
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.[1]
Afshin-Jam Majd described the matter as serious but added that “unless I can verify exactly who sent it, I can’t really comment.”[1]
The Huffington Post notes various twitter users[2] 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".[3] --
BoogaLouie (
talk)
15:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
OpposeThe 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)reply