Talk:Hasan Minhaj

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 14 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mlozonschi, Shadinamiranian.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 16 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcologna.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism

The passage "Amongst other achievements like claiming to have placed first in a 1993 spelling bee, Minhaj confirmed a love for breakfast cereal Honey Bunches of Oats in August 2019." was suggested vandalism (check the citation on the passage) and at least the part about the spelling bee should be removed. ControlledCrash (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nailed it

Details of correspondence dinner section needed. Wikipietime (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"he took on the traditional role"

He was chosen to perform at the White House correspondents dinner in 2017 where he took on the traditional role of making jokes about the United States President Donald Trump and the American press corps.

• This needs rewriting by someone who has seen many White House correspondents' dinner speeches (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump), and can find relevant citations.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nicki Minhaj"

Okay, I'll give you this one. Nicki Minhaj is kind of hilarious, but PLEASE don't vandalize the wiki. Keep jokes away from places where people often need factual information. Readers likely aren't here for comedy. | MuganiHakHakHak (talk) 04:18, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Despite not being a place for humor it might make sense on some pages, such as pages from comedians to have some humor there, especially if it samples the humor of the comedian, of course it will need to be properly introduced that that paragraph is humor and not true (or not verifiable) | Tbbttbbt (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hasan Minhaj. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016172019/http://www.laughspin.com/2009/08/24/hasan-minhaj-giving-comedy-the-college-try/ to http://www.laughspin.com/2009/08/24/hasan-minhaj-giving-comedy-the-college-try/

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) 01:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

22 Aug 2019 vandalism

Hasan suggested adding some funny things to the Wikipedia page on him during today's episode of Deep Cuts. (see youtube v=lMcOynrekI8?t=316) FYI. 107.147.186.215 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I had a feeling that's why this page was experiencing such a random influx of vandalism. Thank you for that information. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2019

Revert the article to 912006985 (only qustionable selfpublished source (WP:SELFPUB) provided) --Pan BMP (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Personal life section

Apparently Minhaj encouraged his fans to add certain trivial details about his personal life to this article. Those details aren't encyclopaedic or sourced, but people keep adding them, so it seems like this article will have to remain protected for the time being. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Lead phrasing

The there seems to be some debate brought up by User:Matza Pizza. The lead mentions Minhaj's use of "emotional truths" in his standup. I think it's unfair to say, "Many of the personal anecdotes used in his standup are untrue or partial fabrications". This seems to not have an objective point of view, and is inaccurate since it's impossible to know the factual inaccuracies of all his stories, we know only some of them to be untrue or partially untrue. We can't assume what we don't know and say "Many" are "untrue", despite his acknowledgement that some stories are untrue and he doesn't always tell stories that are factually true. I suggest the phrasing, "Minhaj uses stories which are loosely based on his personal life which are intended to illustrate "emotional truths"". This seems to be an accurate objective way of approaching the topic.The One I Left (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream media is describing what Minhaj engaged in as "lies" and "fabrication".

The lede should represent the facts as described by the New York Times, NBC News, the New Yorker, and others. I should note that every time someone gets caught making stuff up, they always retreat to the undisprovable version of "composite" and mere "exaggeration" and the like. Here are the facts: The stories which formed his standup career were made up of lies. Matza Pizza (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Matza Pizza (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No doubt that there was reporting from The New Yorker which covered three or four stories that Minhaj had used which were either exaggerations or complete fabrications. But I think that its unfair to say, "Many of the stories are untrue" based on these four instances. It seems to strike a particular biased POV, with language that is specifically provocative. Many comedians also tell stories that aren't accurate as well, should that caveat be included in all their ledes as well? I don't think so. Are you saying you want a line in the lede discussing the controversy? Would love to hear what other people have to say.The One I Left (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of his gross fabrications belongs in the lede. Saying "he uses stories which are loosely based on his personal life" is meaningless, as every personal story is based on the speaker's personal life. What Minhaj did is entirely different. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Consensus hasn't been made yet. I have to disagreeThe One I Left (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

There is consensus, as demonstrated in this thread and in the edit history. You just disagree with it. Take it to RFC or BLP if you want additional eyes on it. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Reliable sources describe his remarks as lies and fabrications. This should be in the lead. KlayCax (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object me readding it? KlayCax (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you've significantly expanded on the one sentence mention in the lead. I don't feel strongly but an entire paragraph may be too much detail and unnecessarily redundant considering it is discussed at length in the controversy section. Bangabandhu (talk) 06:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Final sentence in lead

The phrasing here seems itself misleading, "Minhaj responded to the reporting, stating that it was "needlessly misleading" while admitting to the fabrications". Context needs to be added so the reader knows that he admitted to few "fabrications" and were for the purpose of comedic storytelling in his standup material.The One I Left (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree with updating this. His YouTube video response has been posted. I propose this be updated from:

> In September 2023, The New Yorker detailed instances of Minhaj fabricating or embellishing stories that were used in his comedy specials and repeated in interviews. Minhaj responded to the reporting, stating that it was "needlessly misleading" while admitting to the fabrications.

to

> In September 2023, The New Yorker detailed instances of Minhaj fabricating or embellishing stories that were used in his comedy specials and repeated in interviews. Minhaj responded to the reporting, suggesting it was taken out of context, and providing the surrounding context to the interview snippets in a YouTube interview.

He didn't really admit to "fabricating". The only word he uses in the video is "embellishing" and his point-of-view is that storytelling shows are an emotional piece first, a factual one second (contrasted with Patriot Act, which is a factual show first and an emotional one second).

The entire section below also needs to be revisited - the passages about race have been directly countered in the video, and the others have been explained. I'd suggest the article should give equal coverage to Hasan's response, by either expanding that section or contracting the New Yorker focused section. Silent Nemesis2710 (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker section could use some editing

The New Yorker section repeats itself quite a bit, including Minhaj’s response appearing in the second paragraph and in its whole subsection at the end, and that subsection rephrases the same material a couple times (like the “needlessly misleading” line).

I might go ahead and trim it down/condense it to the main points, unless anyone else wants a crack at it Bagabondo (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Bagabondo - I took the liberty to edit and update that particular section. It was written poorly and undue. Qalb alasid (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. I simplified the wording a bit more (Minhaj using "text messages and audio interviews" was mentioned twice). Thanks for the improvement, it looks much better now. Bagabondo (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Bagabondo - No problem, glad we were able to get that fixed! Thank you! Qalb alasid (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

New Yorker Controversy Section

Hello @Muboshgu,

I noticed you removed sections citing The New Yorker's detailed coverage (It was a partial revert hence - might have missed the refrences) of stories Hasan Minhaj engaging in the fabrication of stories. I believe it's crucial to retain these points, as they directly relate to themes of discrimination and racism—issues Minhaj has claimed to experience and which hold significant social weight. If aspects of these narratives are untrue, it impacts both public perception of Minhaj's work and broader conversations on these serious topics, potentially undermining real instances of discrimination faced by others.

These facts meet Wikipedia’s standards of notability, reliability, and due weight as they are well-documented in reputable sources and extensively covered by the media. The article should reflect this, with a balanced view, and provide readers with the full context of Minhaj's public narrative choices.

In your edit history - you have specified this as WP:UNDUE , can you please explain how is it undue?

Thanks. SpunkyGeek (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Like Qalb alasid said when they reverted you ten days ago, your addition is redundant and overly detailed. Subsections for this are definitely WP:UNDUE. You also added WP:UNSOURCED paragraphs which is unacceptable especially in a WP:BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu,

Let me respectfully address the concerns regarding the inclusion of specific incidents in the article about Hasan Minhaj. I agree with the principle of avoiding undue weight on controversies but believe these fabrications are central to understanding Minhaj's public persona and the criticism he has faced. Below is a summary of the key fabrications, supported by The New Yorker’s investigative reporting (a reliable and reputable source):

1. The "Brother Eric" FBI Informant Story
   • Claim: Minhaj alleged an FBI informant infiltrated his mosque, leading to a fabricated interaction involving law enforcement. (The King’s Jester)
   • Fact: The informant, Craig Monteilh, was in prison in 2002 and never worked in Sacramento.
2. The Anthrax Threat Letter
   • Claim: Minhaj described an anthrax-laced letter spilling onto his daughter, who was rushed to the hospital. (The King’s Jester)
   • Fact: Minhaj admitted that there was some sought of powder but not not white powder or anthrax. He exaggerated for emotional impact. (The New Yorker)
3. The Saudi Embassy and Khashoggi Murder Timeline
   • Claim: Minhaj implied his meeting with the Saudi Embassy occurred the same day as Jamal Khashoggi's murder, heightening perceived danger.
   • Fact: The meeting occurred at least a month prior, and the timeline was deliberately conflated. (The New Yorker)
4. The Time 100 Gala and Jared Kushner
   • Claim: Minhaj accused Kushner of taking a seat reserved for a jailed Saudi activist.
   • Fact: No such ceremonial seat existed; the detail was fabricated for narrative effect. (The New Yorker)
5. The High School Prom Rejection
   • Claim: Minhaj recounted being rejected due to racism, dramatizing events involving a corsage exchange. (Homecoming King)
   • Fact: The woman involved confirmed she declined his invitation days before the prom, and Minhaj acknowledged fabricating details to illustrate broader racism. (The New Yorker)
6. Tweets and Threatening Messages Displayed Onstage
   • Claim: Minhaj showcased threatening tweets during his special to highlight risks he faced.
   • Fact: Minhaj admitted the tweets were fabricated for dramatic effect. (The New Yorker)

Minhaj himself defended these fabrications as “emotional truths” intended to underscore broader social points. However, given the personal and political weight of these claims, these fabrications blur the line between storytelling and deception, which some critics argue undermines audience trust—particularly given his overlap with journalistic-style content.

These specific incidents are significant because they illustrate a pattern of embellishment central to Minhaj’s public image and criticism. They also raise ethical questions about storytelling standards in entertainment that intersects with real-world issues.

I welcome further discussion @Qalb alasid & (if you have any further points to add) and would appreciate your guidance on how this aligns with Wikipedia - policies, particularly WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.

.

Thank you for your time and consideration. SpunkyGeek (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the details SpunkyGeek. I don't think this article warrants that exhaustive list of 'claims' and 'facts'. In fact, now that I am reviewing the section again, the last sentence regarding his candidacy for the host position is based on a source that explicitly states 'rumor mill.' I don't think it belongs on the article.Qalb alasid (talk) 16:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qalb alasid,

I understand and respect your concern about not overloading the article with exhaustive details. I would propose that a concise synopsis would be more appropriate than listing every specific incident in full detail.

However, I believe that the claims and subsequent revelations about embellishments in Hasan Minhaj's stories are undeniably relevant to his public persona and career, particularly because much of his work is rooted in socio-political commentary and personal anecdotes. These fabrications, as confirmed by The New Yorker (a highly reputable source), directly inform how his audience—and the broader public—perceive his ethical standards and credibility, especially when his career is built on addressing real-world issues.

A balanced article (WP:REL & WP:NPOV) should reflect this aspect of Minhaj's storytelling, as it has been a significant subject of public discourse and critical analysis. I propose summarizing the section with a brief note that highlights:

1. Minhaj's claims that were later revealed as fabricated or exaggerated.
2. His defense, which frames these fabrications as "emotional truths" intended to highlight broader social issues.
3. The criticism, which questions the ethical implications of blending fiction with reality, particularly in content perceived as journalistic or autobiographical.

For example:

"Minhaj has faced criticism for fabricating or exaggerating details in several of his stories, such as his experiences with discrimination, political activism, and personal interactions. These claims, later debunked by The New Yorker, include altered timelines, invented events, and fabricated threats, which Minhaj has defended as 'emotional truths' meant to underscore broader societal issues. Critics, however, argue that such embellishments risk undermining trust in his narrative and blurring the line between storytelling and deception."

Additionally, I have reverted the edit regarding Minhaj being a frontrunner to host The Daily Show. Minhaj himself confirmed the story, and I have attached multiple reliable sources corroborating this fact. It is an important aspect of his career trajectory and warrants inclusion in the article - following WP:REL. SpunkyGeek (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek - fine, I see your point on why it should be included. I don't particularly like the version you have written it, but using what you wrote and the existing text, I've re-written below, take a look. Also, which sources will you use for the additional text you have added?

"In the September 2023 issue of The New Yorker, Minhaj was accused of embellishing stories that had been parts of his acts such as altered timelines and fabricated events and threats. In October 2023, Minhaj responded and provided text messages and audio interviews indicating The New Yorker had fabricated much of their story and left out key facts. Minhaj defended himself saying it was 'emotional truths' meant to underscore broader societal issues. Critics argue that such embellishments risk undermining trust in his narrative and blurring the line between storytelling and deception." Qalb alasid (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Qalb alasid,

Thank you for taking another look and revising the text - However, I still feel some key aspects of the situation are missing, and I’d like to address them.

Firstly, the version you proposed omits the context of what Minhaj was embellishing—his experiences in the realms of political activism, discrimination, and personal interactions. This context is critical because it directly relates to the broader societal themes he engages within his work and the audience's perception of its authenticity.

Secondly, while I agree we should avoid including all the incidents from The New Yorker's report, leaving them out entirely makes the section overly vague.Including one or two examples would give readers a clearer idea of the nature and scale of these embellishments.

Here's my proposal :

"In the September 2023 issue of The New Yorker, Minhaj was accused of embellishing stories central to his acts, including experiences of political activism, discrimination, and personal interactions. Examples included an anthrax threat letter he described spilling onto his daughter (later admitted to be exaggerated) and a fabricated account of an FBI informant infiltrating his mosque. Minhaj responded in October 2023, providing text messages and audio interviews that he claimed undermined The New Yorker's reporting and alleged that key facts had been omitted. He defended his storytelling as 'emotional truths' intended to highlight broader societal issues. Critics argue that such embellishments risk undermining trust in his narrative and blurring the line between storytelling and deception."

Regarding sources, you could use these - 1, 2, 3.

Thanks SpunkyGeek (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@SpunkyGeek The paragraph could still use grammatical and brevity improvements. What about this:

"In the September 2023 issue of The New Yorker, Minhaj was accused of embellishing stories (such as political activism and discrimination) central to his comedic acts. Examples included an anthrax threat letter that spilled onto his daughter and a fabricated account of an FBI informant infiltrating his mosque. Minhaj responded in October 2023, providing text messages and audio interviews alleging The New Yorker omitted key facts. He defended his storytelling as 'emotional truths' to highlight broader societal issues. Critics argue that such embellishments risk undermining trust in his narrative and blurring the line between storytelling and deception." Qalb alasid (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)