Jump to content

Talk:Farnaz Fassihi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Farnaz Fassihi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times propaganda writer

[edit]

In the January 1, 2020 edition of the New York Times the author devotes an entire column to promote a story of a cover up inside the Government of Iran. Most of the world was aware within hours that Iran had mistakenly shot down the commercial 737. No further analysis is necessary - just another garbage article written by an employee of the ruling class that conveniently avoids any scrutiny of US aggression towards Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.120.181.221 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]

Does she hold dual citizenship? --Malerooster (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page Subject to Vandalism and False Claims

[edit]

Hello, my name is Charlie Stadtlander, part of the communications department at The New York Times, (Ms. Fassihi's employer at the time of writing). This page contains a number of false claims edited by critic's of Ms. Fassihi's journalism, including some grossly false and misleading statements about her background and professional credentials. On October 3 some particularly egregious falsehoods were edited in by anonymous users, which I reverted. I am aware of the Wikipedia policy on biography editing, and would be glad to discuss with any good-faith editors seeking to accurately portray Ms. Fassihi's biography.

cc Laterthanyouthink, Oculi, Nat965

CharlieStadtlander (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CharlieStadtlander:. I will have a proper look at this later to check for uncited content, but am happy to address any specific false claims if you can list them here. It doesn't look as if the vandalism has been frequent enough to warrant page protection at this stage, but this is possibility for the future if it continues. You need to use the ping template to alert users; I will @Oculi: and @Nat965: here in case they didn't get the watchlist notification. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the reply User:Laterthanyouthink; the specific false claims involved top heading mentions that Ms. Fassihi is "on the payroll of the Islamic Republic of Iran", which is both false and degrading to the journalistic integrity of her and The New York Times. Similar claims periodically arise. CharlieStadtlander (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CharlieStadtlander, I've spent a bit of time restructuring and copyediting the page. In general, WP:CRIT says not to have a Controversies section, but I couldn't think of a better title for that bit for the moment. The rest of "Views" could be included in her career, but the tweet hoo-ha looks like just one of those social media storms. I don't have time to find citations for the rest or to rewrite the bit I've called Other roles, but if you want to supply sources I might come back to it. (I am not American and had never heard of her, so completely uninvolved - just trying to shape to wiki standards what was there already.) If the page is attacked by IP vandals again, I will request page protection. Hope that helps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much User:Laterthanyouthink; appreciate the time spent. CharlieStadtlander (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, CharlieStadtlander. I've done a bit more today - added a few citations and some other content I found, and decided to move the "controversy" section up into the Career section, but I'm done for now. It would be nice to have some citations for all of those awards though. Oh, I also noticed more IP vandalism so requested page protection, which it has for a while at least. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fassihi "published a misleading article in New York Times"?

[edit]

There is so much wrong with this IP edit claiming that Fassihi "published a misleading article in [the] New York Times" that it's difficult to know where to begin.

  • For starters, the only "sources" offered to support this assertion are a tweet by Masih Alinejad, which does not mention Fassihi, and a CBC News article, which similarly does not mention Fassihi.
  • (Since the cited sources do not mention the living subject of this page, at all, the edit is already in clear-cut violation of WP:V and WP:BLP, two of our foundational content policies.)
  • There is no dispute that The New York Times accurately quoted Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, the prosecutor-General of Iran, as stating that "[t]he morality police 'was abolished by the same authorities who installed it'," a remark that was widely reported around the world.
  • While CBC News quotes "Iranian-Canadian human rights activist and lawyer Kaveh Shahrooz" as stating that "Iran's regime is not normal; its official statements are often lies designed to mislead the world," it does not present this attributed opinion as a factual claim—much less allege that "multiple credible media outlets, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal," which reported on Montazeri's statement, were themselves complicit in a scheme to "mislead" their readers.
  • The IP user draws attention to the fact that The New York Times article was later revised, but overlooks the crucial context that the original, supposedly "misleading" version from December 4 ("Iran Abolishes Morality Police After Months of Protests") was actually not credited to Fassihi—only Vivian Yee's name appears on the byline, along with a note that "Emma Bubola contributed reporting from London."
  • Despite the IP user's attempt to contrast The New York Times's "false news" with a CBC News article, the revised December 5 The New York Times article by Yee and Fassihi ("Iran Has Abolished Morality Police, an Official Suggests, After Months of Protests") does not differ substantially from CBC News in its reporting or analysis (even quoting the same analyst, Gissou Nia).

It was unclear whether the statement amounted to a final decision by the theocratic government, which has neither announced the abolition of the morality police nor denied it. But if the force is abolished, the change will be unlikely to appease protesters who are still clashing with other security forces and have become so emboldened that some are calling for an end of the Islamic Republic. ... And for all the symbolism, the announced abolition of the morality police would probably do little to appease the ordinary Iranians who have been flooding the streets since Ms. Amini's death to demand sweeping change. ... Gissou Nia, a human rights lawyer who leads the board at the U.S.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, said the demonstrations had evolved since the early days after Ms. Amini was killed. "The bottom line," she said, "is that the protests are now about challenging the entirety of the system, and the extreme gender discriminatory laws that mandate compulsory hijab and restrictions on women's rights to marriage, divorce, custody and inheritance are all still in place."—Yee and Fassihi, The New York Times, December 5, 2022.

[Montazeri] also did not specify who exactly allegedly shut down the morality police—or when and how it was shut down. Instead, his comments were "vague and non-transparent," as BBC Persian reported early on. ... "I think it simply underscores that the global community wants a neat resolution to this story and is not realizing that the Iranian people want a full overhaul of the system—not just the morality police," Gissou Nia, an Iranian-American human rights lawyer at the Atlantic Council told CBC News. ... Many activists argued on social media that Montazeri's comments were a form of misinformation and, in fact, a tactic employed by the Iranian regime to stop the ongoing protests in Iran.—Tizhoosh, CBC News, December 5, 2022.

For these reasons, I have reverted the contested IP edit. Materialscientist also reverted a similar (though entirely unsupported) edit by a different IP user. Both IPs have been notified that this article falls within the scope of administrative discretionary sanctions related to post-1978 Iranian politics as well as articles about living or recently deceased people. They should adhere to WP:BRD, refrain from further edit warring, and seek consensus on the talk page before reinstating contentious and unverified material to disparage Fassihi, the living subject of our biographical entry. Further disruption may be reported to WP:AE, WP:ANI, WP:AN3, or another administrative forum (which could result in sanctions such as logged warnings, topic bans, or blocks). If additional IP users appear to continue the struggle, then I will file another request for page protection, which (if successful) could restrict the ability of non-autoconfirmed users to edit the page. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed these points in an edit: a. clarified that she was added as a contributor to the revision of the article, that b. the title of the article was adjusted as she was added, and c. removed the descriptor 'misleading' from the reference to the article. The entry now addresses solely factual points about the article. 192.80.162.118 (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fassihi is a journalist who works for The New York Times. That "she was added as a contributor to the revision of an article in New York Times" is not intrinsically notable; after all, her name has appeared on countless news articles, since journalism is her occupation. Since no secondary sources have commented on Fassihi's role in drafting the article (or identified it as a significant event in her life), it is a violation of Wikipedia's content policies for an editor to cite the New York Times article as a primary source for her co-authorship and to then cite other sources criticizing the article to imply that Fassihi herself was at the center of a social media controversy.
  • Per Wikipedia:No original research: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase 'original research' (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
  • Per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. ... If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research."
Furthermore, the cited New York Times article, which is unquestionably accurate in its factual reporting, does not appear to have been the recipient of especially sustained or notable criticism. There is no reason to believe that a single tweet by an Iranian activist (i.e., Alinejad) and a single passing mention in a news commentary/analysis piece reflect mainstream reception to the New York Times's reportage, either by the general public or other journalists. Additionally, the passing mention in CBC News (i.e., "On Sunday, multiple credible media outlets, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, led with the headline that the morality police had officially been abolished") refers to the original headline "Iran Abolishes Morality Police After Months of Protests," which failed to properly attribute the claim to the Iranian official who made it (i.e., Montazeri). However, even beyond the fact that Fassihi was not listed as a contributor to the early version of the article containing this headline, Wikipedia already does not consider news headlines to be reliable as a matter of policy, in part because "[t]hey are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
  • Per WP:HEADLINES: "News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source. If the information is supported by the body of the source, then cite it from the body. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles."
Therefore, if the slightly overstated original headline, which was quickly changed in less than 24 hours, is notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia, then it would be in an altogether different Wikipedia article focusing on The New York Times controversies, rather than in Fassihi's biographical entry.
Again, please desist from reinstating contentious and unverified material to a WP:BLP without consensus here on the talk page, which has not yet been reached. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are introducing your own subjective bias by using descriptors such as "unquestionably" when it fits your narrative, "article ... is unquestionably accurate in its factual reporting", "slightly" when it does not, "if the slightly overstated original headline", "quickly" when it does, "which was quickly changed in less than 24 hours", etc. You should refrain from acting as the arbitrator of the validity of the criticism laid by the Iranian activists, the importance of the article's title, or the speediness of its correction.
Also, contrary to your claim, the criticism laid out against the article is not limited to its title or only the original revision, but the content of the article is also disputed. The New York Times article, after being edited by Fassihi, claims that "Abolishing the morality police could have a major effect on the state’s ability to control what women wear." while the CBC article writes "Notably, Montazeri said the enforcement of the country's Islamic sharia laws would continue by means of 'social surveillance' — demonstrating that whether the morality police exists or not, Iranian women will still be subjected to the same punitive legal system dictating the Islamic dress code".
I am reinstating the edit and I suggest you request a third opinion instead of imposing your personal bias. 192.80.162.118 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your edits are a violation of Wikipedia's content policies, which are non-negotiable and will be enforced (whether you understand that now or not). Your recent edit only compounds the issue by publishing an original criticism not made by any secondary sources, but rather by yourself as an IP user, claiming to speak on behalf of "the Iranian activists".

In particular, the article claims that "Abolishing the morality police could have a major effect on the state's ability to control what women wear,"[citing The New York Times itself for this statement, which has not been noted by any secondary sources] while the critics note ... that "any 'change' regarding the morality police will make no difference to the enforcement of the dress code."[citing this article in The Globe and Mail: "While Mr. Montazeri's comments gave some credence to the possibility that the morality police's days may be numbered, Iranian women's rights advocate and historian Dr. Nina Ansary says any 'change' regarding the morality police will make no difference to the enforcement of the dress code."]—192.80.162.118, 04:50, 11 December 2022.

Because The Globe and Mail article that you presented as a source for what "the critics" or "the Iranian activists" said about the quoted excerpt from The New York Times in fact does not mention The New York Times, Fassihi, the passage in question, or any critics thereof, your edit is a form of original research by way of synthesis, and fails verification.
Wikipedia does not exist to publish original thought or right great wrongs, yet you are claiming to speak on behalf of "the critics" and "the Iranian activists," publishing unverified original material attributed to these entities on a sensitive biographical entry subject to WP:BLP concerns as well as discretionary sanctions related to post-1978 Iranian politics. You have edit warred to reinstate this material without consensus, and seem to be completely uninterested in complying with Wikipedia's content policies, even after they have been patiently explained to you. This will not continue indefinitely: If you revert again, your behavior will be taken to an appropriate administrative forum. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your point on my addition being original research is invalid. Synthesis clearly states that '"A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article.' I have added references directly citing the New York Article and links to activists criticizing it specifically because they believe that "the abolition of morality police is not relevant at all anymore". However, you have simply and completely removed my additions, as if in attempt to hide the fact that Fassihi has been a contributor to a highly controversial article.
As I mentioned previously, I am fully open to obtaining a third opinion. 192.80.162.118 (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this issue comes up again it might be worthwhile to post to WP:BLPN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Farnaz_Fassihi&oldid=1201932100"