Talk:Hamid Algar

Contentious material

The material in question regarding alleged comments made by the subject of this biography is currently unacceptable as written, per WP:BLP.

• The only sources are a repost of an article from an apparently-defunct and unverifiable Armenian student-run journal and an unbylined apparent press release from an Armenian student group. Neither of these are reliable sources for contentious material about living persons.
• The material constitutes significant undue weight - well over half the article text was about one minor alleged incident 15 years ago.

The material needs to be rewritten in a neutral, balanced and properly-weighted fashion with support from reliable sources. I suggest the editor who has reverted the material into the article should begin discussing it here. polarscribe (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards."

The material in question is poorly sourced, at best, and relies on self-published sources. polarscribe (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The press release posted on Asbarez is cited only to the "AGRC" - which appears to be the "Armenian Genocide Resource Center", a blog. It is entirely improper to use that sort of sourcing to make derogatory accusations about a living person. polarscribe (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The only other [reliable] source(s) I've been able to find are from The San Francisco Chronicle. Here's a citation:

• Johnson, Chip. 1999. "Free speech shows bad judgment / professor's ugly remarks should not be tolerated." San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 27, 1999.

Please share any other balanced or reliable sources you have in mind. Jackal 06:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say that's a start - it's published in a major newspaper, although it's clearly an op-ed and we would need to avoid the author's biases/opinion in the matter. If there is only one source to be found, I'd be very concerned about undue weight and an inability to get a balanced view of the alleged incident. I'll do a Lexis/Nexis and academic search through the IU Library in the morning. polarscribe (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone, including Professor Algar and Berkeley university's administrative establishment, disputes this nasty spat occurred. "Armenian Genocide Resource Center" is a website that works actively to deny the Armenian genocide, so your conjecture (original research on your part) that that is what AGRC stands for is incorrect. Asbarez is a community newspaper and it would not rely on such a slanted site for sources and since its article was published in 1999, I doubt the website even existed at the time. Usanogh was a UC Armenian student-run paper - are you questioning the author's credibility, and if so, on what grounds? Additional material can probably be found in the official declarations and reports cited in the Asbarez article.

And by the way, Professor James Russell, the chair holder of the Armenian Studies program at Harvard University, referred to this incident in a speech several years ago, saying "Often the ruins of Armenian villages and even quarters of whole cities are untouched. So I note with appreciation the inclusion of Hamid Algar, a professor of Persian and Islamic studies (and, for the record, a superb scholar) who in 1998 spat on members of the Armenian Student Association at UC Berkeley. He is quoted as having said to them: 'It was not a genocide, but I wish it were, you lying pigs...You stupid Armenians, you deserve to be massacred!'" So this isn't as obscure as one may think.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

An unbylined, clearly-slanted article in a newspaper with a clear POV on the issue is not a reliable source. The speech from James Russell is at best tangential. "He is quoted as having said" - who or what is the source for that quote?

We need unbiased, neutral sources such as major newspapers, etc. The Chronicle column is a start and I welcome attempts at a well-sourced and unbiased rewrite. polarscribe (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This is no matter a case of good-faith adherence to BLP. You just violated 3RR.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It would help everyone if you propose your sourced content on this page. I believe all other users are asking the same thing from you.Kazemita1 (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How many more sources do you need? Berkeley's own official newspaper, The Daily Cal reported on the confrontation here and here, and according to one article, the university even issued an apology (in Algar's stead) to the eight Armenian students "On behalf of the University, the Complaint Resolution Office extends a sincere apology to the Armenian students involved in this incident."--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Cal is likely a reliable source. The existing sources are not. As I have suggested, we should begin a sourced rewrite based solely upon reliable sources and with a neutral tone. I will propose a version tonight, and I would invite you to propose a version as well - then we can begin working to build a consensus version. polarscribe (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Cal can of course be used to supplement the existing material. But you're not going to shoehorn your views by deliberately excluding the others without giving proper reasoning, which, after almost a dozen edits, you have failed to convincingly do.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as supplement. We either use a source (once its reliability is assured) or don't use it (when there is no assurance of its reliability). --Kazemita1 (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No reliable source in the disputed section and therefore removing

Reliable Source Noticeboard (WP:RSN):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Periodical_of_Armenian_Students_suitable_for_WP:BLP

Biography of Living Persons Noticeboard (WP:BLPN):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hamid_Algar

--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

With only you and Polarscribe discussing these two threads at the noticeboards so far, there is no consensus at all for a removal of anything in this article. Please be aware that per this decision by Wikipedia's arbitration committee, sites dealing with topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan may be subject to discretionary sanctions. I'd hate to impose a one-revert per day restriction or something similar on the site, so please keep discussing the matter either here or at the noticeboards, but don't continue to edit war. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be highly inappropriate for you to impose any administrative action, given that you have involved yourself in the content dispute by reverting the disputed material. No ArbCom decision can exempt an article from WP:BLP. polarscribe (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

there is no consensus at all for a removal of anything in this article. There should be consensus for INCLUSION, otherwise it should stay out, not the other way around it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'll leave my unasked for comment here and will copy to the other venues: it looks like a horribly sourced non-notable incident and it should be removed. Invoking BLP may work here, though opinions there may differ, but it is clear that Polarscribe needs to stop edit-warring and they may need another block, a long one. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Update: I just noticed that Polarscribe removed it four times, and that's plenty of reason for a one-week block. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• I too find it weird to allocate a whole section to one incident in his life. I am with Drmies on the non-notability issue.--Kazemita1 (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You think an incident of a professor from a prestigious university like Berkeley making some very outrageous comments and ethnic slurs and spitting on a student on a day of mourning should be trimmed or just swept under the rug? It's a pretty significant event, at least to the students involved and the university itself, which in the end felt that it warranted a months-long investigation, publish a report, and issue an apology to the students. The sources can be improved but to say this article is "horribly" sourced is hyperbole. The students vent their views in their own periodical and a community newspaper covers it. Both authors are neutral in their tone and say nothing that might suggest their credibility is at fault. With the Daily Cal articles, I think we can go ahead and wrap this all up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. However, please bear in mind what Wikipedia is not and why one needs to be extra cautious in biographies of living people. That being said, all I meant was that allocating a whole section in a relatively short article is undue. This does not rule out the mere mention of this incident. Just pick the right sources and come up with a concise account of those events.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I never heard about Hamid Algar, but quickly looked at sources retrieved by Google. My first impression: this is not a highly notable person, although he probably deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. He published a number of books, and these books are frequently cited (he deserves inclusion), but I did not find any independent secondary sources that tell anything informative about him. The only currently cited source is a partisan religious advertisement. According to NPOV, we must describe every subject per majority of sources, but this might be a person notable mostly (or significantly) for one event, and that is the scandal related to his statements about the Armenian genocide. If this is the case, the previous version could be actually consistent with NPOV. So, here is the bottom line: one needs more sources about this person. If there are no good 3rd party secondary sources describing him as a highly notable scholar (I did not find any so far), I think MarshallBagramyan is right, and the previous version was consistent with WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For academic related people we are advised to look at their publication/citation record for which Google scholar and Google books are good places to start with. Also, there are scholarly secondary sources that talk about him.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Last source provides only very brief information (already in article). Yes, it can be used. As about Google books (first link), yes that is what I was talking about. Here is the problem: those books are either written by him or represent references to his book (which counts only as a good citation index; yes, he deserves inclusion in wikipedia). However, I could not find any serious discussions of his work by 3rd parties or any more detailed biographical information in the books to be included here. Perhaps there are such sources, but I could not find them. When that happens, one can and must use something published in a University newspaper about a University professor, as has been done in the text which is currently removed.My very best wishes (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your last edit in this article and think all current refs are valid, such as that one included by you. Same with other refs, such as this,this, (same source) here and this, they also should be used. Main point here: these sources are reliable enough to source his own words, for example in his interview included by you. BTW, I think what he tells about suicide bombers and killing innocent civilians deserves inclusion.My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Armenian sources do not qualify for 3rd party secondary sources in narrating the accounts of this dispute as they are obviously one side of the dispute (no offense though). Also, student periodicals are not reliable enough for BLP as was pointed out in the WP:RSN. That being said there are some sources talk about that incident and no one is disputing them(like dail Cal mentioned above).

Regarding your other comment "discussions of his work by 3rd parties", it is a good one; as you said if we find some 3rd party sources that talk about his works we would probably be able to increase the volume of the article so we do no even have to talk about the dispute mentioned above.Kazemita1 (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I also welcome your proposal of inclusion of "what he tells about suicide bombers and killing innocent civilians".

You honestly cannot go about saying something like "Armenian sources do not qualify for 3rd party secondary sources" and then expect people to not take offense. This is a warped understanding of how Wikipedia operates. A source should be scrutinized for its credibility, not at the ethnic identity of the author(s) and I kindly ask you Kazemita that you do not bring it up again or I will report you. Nowhere in the article in Usanogh does the author say anything which prejudices her reliability as an author. Again, I will repeat my question posed to those who have voiced opposition to using Usanogh and Asbarez: where exactly do you see their credibility as so lacking that they should be excluded from the article?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Third party = is often used to refer to a person or entity who is not involved in an interaction or relationship..Kazemita1 (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I must agree with MarshallBagramyan. Based on the discussion and sources so far, this article appear to be a case of self-promotion [1] by a marginally notable individual who is mostly known (based on sources quoted so far) for a genocide denial and ethnically motivated slander. There are multiple sources which are reliable enough to quote his own words on campus. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is mainly the sources. As I had mentioned earlier, WP:RSN declared student periodicals are not reliable for BLP articles. Also, as you said earlier we need Third party sources for this article. So far I have not seen any sources with this quality that describes the accounts of the event.

Also, you are alone in saying this article appear to be a case of self-promotion.--Kazemita1 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken by claiming the existence of two sides here. This is not Nagorno-Karabakh War. There is only one side: a professor who used ethnic slander on campus. Speaking about WP:COI/self-promotion, I gave this diff. Who do you think makes such edits, especially taking into account location of the IP? My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not know who that IP is and I do not want to assume anything about it. All I know is that I will continue to use third party sources in this article to disallow any self-promotion. As for the other side of the dispute, it would be Hamid Algar himself AND Wiki policies on BLP.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reviews of Algar's work

Below is a list of third-party secular sources that reviewed and discussed Algar's work. Most of them are accredited academic journals. I will gradually extract info and add them to the article. I therefore find it baseless to say he is only notable for one incident on campus:

• Review: Roots of the Islamic Revolution in Iran: Four Lectures by Hamid Algar Review by: Tariq Rahman Islamic Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Winter 2003), pp. 711-714

• Review: Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali: An Exponent of Islam in its Totality by Hamid Algar Review by: Muḥammal al-Ghazālī, MUHAMMAD AL-GHAZĀLĪ Islamic Studies, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn 2002), pp. 537-543

• Review: Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period by Hamid Algar Review by: Nikki Keddie Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1972), pp. 116-118

• Review: Religion and State in Iran, 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period by Hamid Algar Review by: Edwin M. Wright Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 390, A New American Posture toward Asia (Jul., 1970), pp. 160-161

• Review: Religion and State in Iran, 1785-1906; The Ulema in the Qajar Period by Hamid Algar; Mirza Malkum Khan; A Biographical Study in Iranian Modernism Review by: M. W. Estudios Orientales, Vol. 9, No. 3 (26) (1974), p. 394

• Review: Wahhabism: A Critical Essay by Hamid Algar Review by: L. Carl Brown Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 2002), p. 216

• Review: Mīrzā Malkum Khān: A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism by Hamid Algar Review by: L. P. Elwell-Sutton The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1 (1975), pp. 65-67

• Review: Mīrzā Malkum Khān: A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism by Hamid Algar Review by: R. M. Burrell Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 38, No. 1 (1975), p. 167

• Review: Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis by Henry Corbin Review by: Hamid Algar Middle East Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Summer, 1984), p. 567

• Review: Religion and State in Iran 1785-1906: The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period by Hamid Algar Review by: Shaul Bakhash Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3 (Oct., 1972), pp. 429-431

• Review: The Path of God's Bondsmen from Origin to Return (Mersad al-'ebad men al-mabda' ela 'l-ma'ad): A Sufi Compendium by Najm al-Din Razi, Known as Daya by Hamid Algar Review by: Mary Ann Koury Iranian Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Spring, 1986), pp. 201-203

• . Review: Religion and the State in Iron, 1785-1906. The Role of the Ulama in the Qajar Period by Hamid Algar Review by: T. Cuyler Young The American Historical Review, Vol. 76, No. 1 (Feb., 1971), pp. 176-177

• Review: Mirza Malkum Khan: A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism by Hamid Algar Review by: Ervand Abrahamian Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 96, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1976), pp. 308-309

• Review Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declarations of Imam Khomeini by Hamid Algar Review by: Michael M. J. Fischer Iranian Studies, Vol. 14, No. 3/4 (Summer - Autumn, 1981), pp. 263-266

• Review On the Sociology of Islam by Hamid Algar, Ali Shari'ati Review by: Said Amir Arjomand Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Jun., 1980), pp. 218-220

Note: The list can go on and on. You can see a more detailed list in here --Kazemita1 (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If so, you are very welcome to improve this page using these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So what happened to the fate of this section? The discussion obviously petered out after polarscribe's premature departure, but I feel inclined to add back the deleted information after nearly three weeks of failure to produce a good reason to keep it out of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

If by this section you are referring to what My very best wishes was referring to as review of Algar's scholarly works, it has been developed and is there in the article already.

That leaves you the only person in favor of keeping the section of the genocide controversy.--Kazemita1 (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I was obviously referring to the genocide commemoration event. The fact of the matter is is that this whole issue was entirely manufactured. One month and not a single editor, interested or otherwise, was able to demonstrate a problem with the sources, which have now been supplemented with the university's daily newspaper. The entire section is worded neutrally, but the sources are preponderantly do not cast any doubt that it occurred. Wholesale deletion, as carried out by you most recently, under the pretext that no "consensus" exists, is not a proper reason to exclude information which you might find objectionable to. I have refrained from invoking it but just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can prolong and stonewall its inclusion for as long you like. I will consider further deletions and unhelpful edits as carried out in bad faith and will report them accordingly.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I encourage you to read the discussion above. Me, Polarscribe, Drmies were all against inclusion of the section mainly due to BLP concerns. User My very best wishes was conditionally on your side until he found out that Algar is well known for his works and from then on did not defend your position. That means the majority was not in favor of posting the controversial mater (with you alone being the minority). All you did on the other hand was to use absence of others way after the case was closed to exert your minority view.Kazemita1 (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I repeatedly asked editors to demonstrate why the sources in question were considered unreliable and nothing was forthcoming. Nothing was proved that any of the authors lacked credibility. You yourself were given the opportunity to express your views and have thus far failed to provide an adequate, if any, response. I understand you may find this material personally objectionable, considering that it is a prolific scholar making some unseemly remarks against an ethnic group, but there's nothing in Wikipedia's guidelines which give you the right to keep this section forever in abeyance. You've edit warred long enough and have been warned more than once to discontinue such disruptive behavior (especially wholesale blanking). I think I've been indulgent far enough but will report the next infraction.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Comment on the content not the contributor. 2. The issue is not just the sources; it is the Wiki policy on biographies of living persons that does not allow you to write an undue section for a single incident in a contentious manner . People have raised concern on this here. In addition, I had mentioned earlier that if you want to add material on this incident you need to follow Wiki guidelines (WP:SOAP). Again, I remind you that you are the only person insisting on including this big chunk of material. and by the way, this is where user My Best Wishes (your only supporter) was convinced to not include the controversial material at all and instead talk about his works.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)