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)

It's not "merely" a single incident. A single incident can be significant enough to deserve one or more sections and sub-sections devoted to the topic. It's a professor using hate language and the consequences he faces for his actions. For the record, My Very Best wrote, "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." and "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." The issue of notability in this regard, that is, before My Very Best knew about his scholarly works, is irrelevant. His position on that section is clear enough and your allusion that this probably falls under WP:UNDUE and should be diluted is fallacious, to say the least.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I bolded the things he said that in your earlier edit that you need to ponder upon. and his other sentence:

"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,...". I showed him that there are 3rd party sources about his books and that does not happen. Therefore, he stopped his last position implying he agrees with my point. You are more than welcome to go and directly ask him.--Kazemita1 (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Did he say when that happens you can then you can then choose to exclude the section on genocide commemoration?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

He says, because he cannot find any review on his works, perhaps it is a good idea to include the genocide commemoration to provide more notability for this person. But it turned out otherwise.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but where do you see him backing off from his original position and acquiescing in its removal?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked again to look at this dispute. As an article writer, I have only one thing to say: for a very poorly sourced section (one campus newspaper article, one copy on "campus-watch" of a student magazine, and "Armenian News" portal) this has a lot of words. In fact, I just counted: the section is longer than the rest of the article. See WP:UNDUE: this is WAY too much attention paid to ONE small incident (yes, small--if it had been big the real papers would have reported on it) based on TOO FEW sources. So an entire scholarly career, emeritus and all and more books reviewed than you can shake a stick at, outdone and overwhelmed by ONE incident. That's not right. If you can trim it down to three sentences, you might have an argument for inclusion; right now, this seems like smearing. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think this incident must be included per sources (an exact wording and how much space is another matter). This is for two reasons. First, there is no really any doubts per sources that the incident actually took place, and Hamid Algar said what he said. These sources are sufficiently reliable to document his own statement. Second, this is a public statement made on campus, and it is important enough to be mentioned in a BLP. This is not something said in a private setting. Now, if anyone wants to include more "positive" materials about his work, they are very welcome to do so. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Quickly looking at views expressed by HA in one of his interviews, his denial of Armenian genocide do not seem unexpected. For example, some of his other comments can be reasonably interpreted as support of Islamic suicide bombers. My very best wishes (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Trimming it down to three sentences, I think, is unrealistic. There's no way that all the material on the controversy can be summed up in a tiny paragraph. The sources we have thus far 1) periodical run by Armenian-American students 2) the official campus newspaper, Daily Cal, which just so happens to be mirrored on campus-watch (who republishes it is irrelevant if we're just interested in making access to it possible), 3) and an established community newspaper. Further research on databases such as LexisNexus or ProQuest will probably yield more sources so I don't believe this is as obscure an event as it has been presented up to now. Unfortunately, the incident was picked up and widely disseminated in right-wing periodicals to use for their own purposes and have thus diluted the significance of the event. Articles of other university professors who have incurred censure, rightly or wrongly, for their personal/academic views have rarely been assigned size limits and so I don't think it would be advisable to do here. But thanks for your comments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• "have rarely been assigned size limits" is a red herring, and your statements about reliability of sourcing overblown. "Analysis" of LexisNexus hasn't delivered anything so far, and you've been at this for a few weeks. You seem to forget that this is an encyclopedia, where content needs to be sourced rigorously to notable, reliable publication. The only real acceptable reference here is the one from the newspaper, and the rest is clutching at straws. So yeah, it's perfectly acceptable to set a kind of limit, and if you can't see that a 1:1 ratio of article:controversy is ridiculous, then you don't really understand WP:UNDUE. I have edited maybe thousands such articles, and I claim a measure of expertise here: the current state is unacceptable and you can choose to edit it and trim it down, or I will. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, my life does not revolve around Wikipedia and things such as work, school, and traveling naturally get in the way of my ability to carry out extensive research. If I feel the need, though, I can go to some lengths to acquiring sources and material that is normally not available to most people on even the most obscure topics. An article about Pikachu, a cartoon character whose page will have virtually no significant bearing in the practical aspects of life (apologies to all the Pokemon lovers), goes on for over seven printed pages. And yet we feel extremely constrained to limit the size of a section on an unseemly spat between a professor and his students at a reputable university, something that drew the attention of local community leaders and the university administrators no less. I, too, know a thing or two about editing articles and have been editing for almost six years now. But if we're really all going to be this intractable and intransigent in our positions then perhaps another option, such as mediation, is the way to go.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Spat" is the correct word, and to devote half the article to it is--well, ridiculous. I'm going to remove it again--this is, after all, a BLP--and will place a note on WP:BLPN. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I have read this talk page and agree entirely with Drmies here. I see no reliable source verifying that Algar actually said the things he is accused of saying. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I see no public statements at all by Algar on the matter. I see no disciplinary action against him, though there was a mildly critical statement issued. Maybe he got out of line - I don't know. The university issued a generic apology, probably to defuse tensions. Fine. The question here is what sort of weight to give this incident in what is supposed to be a biography of a person's entire life. The issue has to do, at least partially, with the length of the biography as it is now. There is no need to compare the article against our articles on Pokemon characters. I won't even glance at that article as I have no interest in the topic. But if it complies with our policies and guidelines, I don't care much about how long it is. That has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion, as we have no shortages of either paper or ink. So, here's how I see it. The incident is worthy of only a very short mention in a short biography. The details should be referenced to sources that have a reputation for neutrality, not to advocacy publications. If the biography was to grow much, much longer in a policy compliant way, then perhaps one or two sentences could grow to three or four sentences. Otherwise, it gives undue weight to a single episode in a living person's long life and career. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really believe that story was fabricated? Unfortunately, I have to disagree with this edit. Hamid Algar said: "It was not a Genocide, but I wish it was". This is a significant statement, and it must be included. In fact, this tells a lot more about Hamid Algar than anything else. My very best wishes (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I don't believe that the story was "fabricated". I do believe that the story was probably spun by his opponents to paint him in the worst possible light. And I believe, that for whatever reason, he and his supporters have chosen not to discuss the details of what he said or didn't say. That well have been a wise choice, and as always, the presumption of innocence applies. And so far, I don't see any neutral, independent source that verifies that he said those words. I see media outlets pushing a POV, which is their right, but which detracts from their usefulness in this context. Maybe he did say it, and maybe he didn't. I simply do not know. I also don't know what may have been said to him in the run up to his statements to cause him to lose his temper. People say stupid things when they lose their tempers, and often regret them later. The point is that we need an impeccable source that concludes, beyond any argument, that he made such an inflammatory comment in order to include that quote in a Biography of a living person. We have very stringent standard in that regard, which applies to Armenian activists as well as Muslim professors. And even if we had such a source, which we don't, the description of the incident absolutely must not place undue weight on a single angry outburst. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You only removed direct quotation of statement by Algar [2]. It is illogical to accept that someone made "controversial remarks" (per sources A,B,C), but reject direct quotation of the person according to the same sources A, B and C. Speaking about "due weight", I must tell that according to sources so far in the article he is known significantly for this event. My very best wishes (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is illogical to specify too much content about a single incident when there are many secondary sources that reviewed his scholarly works. Everyone is encouraged to choose from the list of jstor journals that talk about his works and include it in the article. --Kazemita1 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I am absolutely not interested in editing this article and responded here only because you asked me on my talk page [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Cullen notes the sourcing here as an issue. I am not opposed in principle to a direct quote, but when I trimmed the content I was struck by how much quoting was being done. I don't think it undue to include one specific inflammatory quote if it's short (that's good article writing) and well-verified (that's being encyclopedic and following the BLP). Thank you Cullen, thank you all. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I in general support the trimming down of the section (the entire wording of the resolution did not necessarily have to be reproduced), but I went ahead and did some research and unearthed some articles from the Daily Cal which I hope will meet everyone's threshold of reliable sources. I've used them to support the quotations I added so that readers at least understand what exactly he said that would set off a university investigation. They shed more light on the incident itself and also give a history of similar, though minor and far less controversial, remarks made by him.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This page attracted my attention because I was talking with user Kazemita about another article, I saw hamid algars page for the first time, I admit that I was shocked. The section about the campus accident ([4]) is extremely defamatory for a university professor who currently teaches, writes books and articles, is an old man, probably has made those comments because he has been in the wrong place at the wrong time and the circumstances surrounding the incident is quite obscure. My questions:

• Is he generally known to be an anti-Armenian?
• Does he make the kind of commenst frequently or was it just this incident?

Kiatdd (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

His behavior was unbecoming of a seasoned academic and university professor, which is why it received any coverage in the first place. Teaching, writing books and articles, and senility do not excuse it. His comments were probably not a result of a general anti-Armenian outlook but his generally pro-Muslim stance. At least that is the impression I got after reading this interview. Jackal 19:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on news reports and the statements of the Armenian students themselves, Algar's comments do not appear to have been made because he was provoked. He walked up to the students and consciously made these statements. Algar was about 58 years old at the time, which is not a very old age. The impression, though, is given by the students that this was done out of the blue, which itself was understandably shocking to hear from a university professor. The school newspaper does write,

According to Anadolu, a Turkish-language news quarterly, during a lecture on the conflict in Bosnia at UC Davis in 1994, Algar said that "Muslims across the world are very tired (of being called) extremists and terrorists. "I tell you as a Muslim, as a Muslim living in this so-called Judeo-Christian country: I am tired," he said, according to Anadolu. "If matters continue the way they are, not only the chickens will come home to roost, vultures will come home to roost! I warn you!" Quoted in Daily Cal, May, 1998

He doesn't quite mince words in his letter to the Daily Cal ("A newspaper that publishes material on the pleasures of sodomy is the ideal forum for the scurrilous nonsense you chose to print") either. You can make what you want from the comments.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I could tell you what I think of this person--but not on-wiki, since that would be a breach of our BLP policy. But that's beside the point, of course. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

@MarshalBagramian: The use of "spat" was discussed and rejected in the WP:BLPN (here). and user My Very Best Wishes was one of them.Kazemita1 (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC) I guess someone needs to revert Marshal's edit as he is currently blocked.--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources: 'campus-watch.org', per page Campus Watch, and nonexistent usanogh.com websites are not neutral whatsoever, therefore fails WP:RS. Per WP:BLP and WP:HARM: "human dignity should be taken into account", "avoid overstatement", "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects", "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm'", "allegations that would significantly harm an individual's life should be avoided", "Unconfirmed allegations may only be included in Wikipedia where they have already been widely publicised by the mainstream news media, in these cases, the allegations should not be given undue weight".

Per wikipedia policies, and considering viewpoints by other editors Cullen328 [5],[6], Drmies [7],[8],[9], Polarscribe [10],[11],[12], Kazemita1 [13],[14] I undid this revision:[15] and removed the controversial content.Kiatdd (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Direct quotation may not be appropriate in this case per Wikipedia:RS#Quotations, however there is no requirement for sources to be neutral. They are almost never neutral in wikipedia sense, including scholarly academic publications where authors usually have no intention or obligation to fairly represent all views. Only wikipedia articles are suppose to be "neutral", but of course they usually do not. Kazemita1 posted these sources two or three times on WP:RS, but there was no consensus that these sources are unreliable and can not be used in BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Approximately three days ago, I added quotations from two articles in the Daily Cal and made some cosmetic changes to the section on the genocide commemoration event. The inclusion of that material was apparently so odious that it qualified as a "disruptive" edit and was enough for an administrator to institute a temporary block against me and revert my edit. Now, I am mindful of Wikipedia's rules on BLP but it seems hard to justify the exclusion of the quotations (which i believe another editor expressed willingness to add so long as they are properly sourced) and not just the students but even Professor Algar's own response. If this incident did not involve a professor from one of the most prestigious universities in the United States making racial remarks and calling for the destruction of an ethnic group, of the calling in of the police, of the university embarking on a five month investigation (their apology may have been generic but that hardly signifies a lack of treating the incident as serious) then I and I think others would not have minded neatly wrapping everything up in a few lines and treating it as a mundane incident. But seeing that it is not, I proffer the below version and invite all interested editors in assessing and critiquing its merits:

He caused a public incident in April 1998, during an on-campus commemoration of the Armenian Genocide organized by the Armenian Students' Association, when he denied the genocide and got into a verbal altercation with the students, reportedly saying "You guys are representing stupid Armenians...you all should have been killed", "There was never a genocide of you people, but there should have been," and allegedly spat in the face of one of the students. Algar later described the incident as "scurrilous nonsense" in a letter to the Daily Cal and criticized the newspaper's decision to run the story. A subsequent complaint by students prompted the university to carry out an investigation. In January 1999, the five-month long investigation concluded and found that while Professor Algar's comments "seem to fall within the bounds of constitutionally protected speech", it did not mean that "the University condones the type of speech used by the parties." The Complaint Resolution Office did, however, issue an apology to the students on behalf of the university. Not satisfied with the university's response, the students turned to the Associated Students of UC Berkeley, which unanimously passed a resolution entitled "A Bill Against Hate Speech and in Support of Reprimand for Prof. Algar" on March 10, 1999.

References

Thanks in advance.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, There is no reliable, independent source that verifies that Algar actually said those words as quoted. We don't quote what people "reportedly" said, or what people "allegedly" said. Quotes must be verified and properly cited. We also don't link to websites, such as "Watch: Monitoring Middle East Studies on Campus" which violate copyright by reprinting copyrighted material from other publications without permission. Please stop your attempts to add these unverified quotes, and remove all copyrighted references that are not hosted on the website of the copyright holder, or be prepared to produce evidence of permission for republication. Wikipedia is very strict about copyrights. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any qualms with removing the hyperlink to CampusWatch if it violates some obscure copyright law (though I have seen mirror sites be used for sources on other articles). The Daily Cal articles I cite above do not even have a link. But you're also insisting that even with the inclusion of the Daily Cal we cannot even include the quotations? I haven't come across anything that says that he didn't say those things. Why else would the university go to such lengths to issue an apology to the students and assert that his words, though ethnically demeaning, disagreeable and/or hurtful, are protected under free speech? I sense some hesitation to withhold even the barest details so the reader does not even know what all the hubbub is about. How is that being a service to the readers? I'm at a loss here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I think this dispute can be resolved by telling that Algar allegedly said what he said (last edit made by Cullen). As Cullen said above, he does "not believe that the story was fabricated", but rather that "the story was probably spun by his opponents to paint him in the worst possible light." Speaking realistically, I do not think there are any doubts about words by Algar, and the only valid objection to including the text as suggested by MarshallBagramyan is "undue weight". Copyright has hardly anything to do with this because quotation of a couple of phrases is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes, I am afraid that you are confusing two separate issues. Of course, a properly attributed two or three sentence quote does not violate copyright. My copyright concern is in regards to the links to the websites that host copies of entire articles from the Daily Cal and other copyrighted publications. Please see WP:COPYRIGHT, which says "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." This is not just "some obscure copyright law" but rather a core Wikipedia policy with legal implications. As for mirror sites such as the Wayback Machine, MarshallBagramyan, their content is neutral. The websites in question here select articles that they think advance their agenda, and exclude articles that advance a contrary agenda. There is no reasonable expectation that these websites would host Daily Cal articles defending Hamid Algar, for example. It should be noted in this context that these websites don't host the Daily Cal article dated May 12, 1998, where it appears that Algar and his supporters defended him. I "reasonably suspect" that these websites violate copyright, and accordingly request that links to these websites be removed.

MarshallBagramyan says "I haven't come across anything that says that he didn't say those things" and My very best wishes says that "I do not think there are any doubts about words by Algar". Wrong. We have a reference listed above that says that Algar called the charges "scurrilous nonsense" on May 12, 1998. I think that response by Algar casts reasonable doubt on whether or not he said those words. WP:QUOTE says that "Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source", and I stand by my opinion that these particular quotes fail that test. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but after looking at the sources above and other available information, including the lack of clear rebuttal from Algar (he never said that he did not contact with the students or said something different), it is very difficult to believe that the words by Algar or the story were fabricated by media. The concern here is not the sources, but NPOV. As about links, they are not required for any sourcing and only serve for convenience of reader. Sure, they can be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the Daily Cal article of May 12, 1998, where Algar called the charges "scurrilous nonsense"? And when the media (a student newspaper in this case) reports that someone "allegedly" or "reportedly" said something, the media is most certainly not verifying the accuracy of the quote. So please expalin how these quotes are verifiable?

WP:BLP is very clear on this kind of thing: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I challenge inclusion of these poorly sourced, controversial quotes under the terms of that policy, and intend to remain "very firm" on this matter. There is no consensus for their inclusion, and local consensus never overrides clear BLP policy.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that was not an adequate rebuttal. To be completely honest, that much ado about nothing is surprising. This person barely meets our notability criteria for inclusion (also note this). I do not think there is anyone here who actually read his work and was deeply impressed by his ideas, whatever they are. As about the Armenian genocide denial (@Marshall), this is also nothing new, notable or impressive. Just drop it. (Perhaps I am a bad wikipedian, but I created or significantly edited biographies only about people, good or bad, who really impressed me ). My very best wishes (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate is what it is. I might simply tag on to the article the Daily Cal articles but I'm not going to insist on making any further changes after seeing how disinterested editors are in simply wanting to report basic facts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Current version looks OK to me as a compromise. Even if reliably sourced, I do not see how this particular change would be very informative for reader, given that basic info about the incident has been already included with supporting refs. This smells like WP:SOAP, similar to this, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Besides, I must add that to me the bare mention of those links is already crossing the bounds of WP:BLP: "make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy".--Kazemita1 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)