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 has not yet been rated 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
Add something about his activity on YouTube, as I described above he goes by the name the "Academic Agent", something should be said about it. If someone doesn´t get to it first, I will add an additional infobox about him as YouTuber.
StrongALPHA (
talk)
09:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
look through going Richard Spencer´s twitter going back to July or early August, I don´t think he self-identifies with the term but he is knee-deep in that ecosystem.
StrongALPHA (
talk)
08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This article is currently under discussion at
WP:BLPN. I recently made significant edits to this article to conform with
WP:BLP. I hope to devolve the BLPN discussion to this talk page for now. Cheers!
JFHJr (
㊟)
23:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure! Indication of the publications' significance is how we avoid
WP:RESUME. It is not customary to list every last insignificant publication of an academic or writer. I'm not opposed to there being a section. But the entries'
WP:WEIGHT (encyclopedic noteworthiness) should be actually and somehow supported.
JFHJr (
㊟)
23:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, I'm hoping the IP contributor at the BLPN discussion will turn here for further immediate concerns. I don't plan on watching this page, so ping me, talk page me, or come back to BLPN if there's a BLP issue. I'm not wedded to my edits, so feel free to do whatever a
WP:CONSENSUS supports. This BLP does deserve a well supported Publications section. Cheers!
JFHJr (
㊟)
00:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)reply
In 2024 Hope Not Hate described his work as "extreme" and aligned with the "scientific racist community" [9]
Should be removed.
Why it should be changed:
Information is libelous, defamatory and poorly sourced. Page shows all publications by author all of which are mainstream, none of which are "extreme" or engage in "scientific racism". Sources makes assertions without evidence. The book Shakespeare's Moral Compass specifically states, p. 55: "The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that, despite typical variations in physical and mental abilities within groups, biologically speaking, people everywhere are essentially the same in their natural capacities, even if not wholly identical. People vary much more within groups than between groups", buttressed by footnote 57 on p. 69n. The only other discussion of race in author's works occur in chapter on Gobineu in The Prophets of Doom in which it is made clear that Gobineu is not discussing race in a scientific biological way (see recent review of this book here:
https://chroniclesmagazine.org/recent-features/from-myth-to-mob-rule-and-back-again/).
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Not done: This sentence is adequately source and quoted correctly. It's a quote from a publication, and their opinion - not fact. If there's material to dispute this it could also be included (e.g. "However, X source said it is not") EncodedTalk 💬09:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Author is not far right and has consistently described his positions as being those of the "sensible centre". Not affilated with any groups. No credible sources make this claim. Libelous and defamtatory in nature.
References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
Not done: I believe the article is balanced and sufficiently sourced, whilst the article's subject may not agree with it, "sensible centre" is their opinion and the Hope Not Hate section is sufficiently sourced, and can be included as their opinion. This is balanced with the addition of the John Sparrow section directly after. EncodedTalk 💬09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Removal of recent edits
Recent changes made to include a piece in the Mallard by "John Sparrow" should be taken with caution, it appears to be a puff piece written for the express purpose of including on this page and itself contains unsubstantiated claims about MI5. Recommend this page is locked and edits removed.
I reviewed the Mallard article. This is clearly just a piece about the history and activities of Hope Not Hate, the author only brings up Parvini as a notable example due to there being a clear record of his university works that clearly contradict the comments in the report.
Fortynightsinspce (
talk)
13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
The article does not contradict the Hope not hate report, the Hope not hate report is based upon the social media account of Parvini, which they give examples of. The contents of that article are opinion and do not act as rebuttal to the claims made by Hope not hate, such as comparing black people to 'homo erectus', I found no other works or articles by 'John Sparrow' to give any indication that it isn't a pseudonym for the purpose of rebutting the content of this Wikipedia page, and with respect your account appears to have been set up today also.
94.195.125.49 (
talk)
14:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm with the other guy, look at the research in the article, that's not something you just collect in a few days. It is impossible for it to be a "rebuttal"-piece, the Parvini part is just a demonstration of how careless Hope not Hate is in their methods. I'd also like to point out that the claims made by Hope not Hate is unsubstantiated, it's just claims that these things have been said, no links to see context or similar, maybe it's a quote, who knows? In all honesty I think the whole thing should just be removed on that ground.
2A02:AA7:4629:944B:5D48:29F2:D9D:658D (
talk)
20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Pandering to Hope not Hate
There is a clear smear campaign against Mr Parvini by the Hope not Hate organisation, due to the inclusion of their libellous claims against him in the article.
Key member of the institute, Matthew Collins, has openly acknowledged his political membership to the Communist party of Britain; communism as an ideology is responsible for the death of tens of millions within the last century.
All slander from such a genocidal political faction, against Mr Parvini should be wiped due to the clear and problematic bias such an institute has.
If the libellous attacks against Mr Parvini aren't cleared, then one can only assume there is a horrifyingly coordinated attempt to politically purge such an upstanding member of British society.
The article contains multiple viewpoints from multiple angles, including ones that dispute the hope not hate article. Whilst the article's subject and yourself may not agree with it, the hope not hate article is sufficiently sourced and can be included.
Wikipedia has robust policies in place to prevent unbalanced or unsourced biography articles, and I do not believe this article violates them policies.
If you have any further questions please leave another message.
The source for hope not hate is refs 10 (
[1]) and 11 (
[2]). Wikipedia is not saying that these claims made by HNH are true or false, we're just saying that's what HNH said, which is true (HNH did say that about Neema).
Yeah I understand that and The Mallard says that those claims are unsubstantiated which is a pretty important addition. That may also be true or false, we can't say but it's just as important as HnH's claims.
2A02:AA7:4629:944B:ED20:AE06:F2E5:4C2 (
talk)
09:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is no way the Mallard article meets
WP:RS. Not only is the writer of the piece essentially anonymous, with no evident subject-matter expertise, but the article being cited makes the absurd claim that Hope not Hate is linked to MI5. The article is peddling conspiracy theories.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Clearly he has subject-matter expertise, just look at the references he is making on Hope Not Hate, this is weeks if not months of research I'd guess.
As for conspiracy theory, that specific part is clearly marked as a theory and therefore it's a bit silly to claim that he is "peddling" conspiracy theories as he is not attempting to portray it as fact but simply a likely theory, it also seems to be describing actions similar to how the
National Endowment for Democracy appears to have been used externally by the CIA so the theory itself is not completely farfetched and we would have to call ourselves for peddlers of conspiracy theories in this case.
2A02:AA7:464E:61C7:9517:5E8B:3099:F6CE (
talk)
20:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You seem to have a very strange idea as to how subject matter expertise is demonstrated. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many months of 'research' you think someone has done writing something. Find some evidence that other credible sources have cited the Mallard article, and/or cited Sparrow on the subject elsewhere, and we'd have something to talk about.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
21:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)reply