Talk:Negar Mortazavi

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 interview

I removed some debated content in this diff as it might be pushing Wikipedia into WP:original research territory with debated bias. It may not also be a notable section too, but that is a different topic.

It is a sensitive topic, so I wanted to add some background and open it for discussion. The interview is from January 8th, 2020. For context, a day before that Reuters had reported this incident could be due to a technical cause . Others had suggested Iranian government’s involvement. Three days later Iran admitted to unintentionally have downed said plane (more: Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752).

During the cited interview, the subject points out it is too early to judge, might be “something nefarious about it or the exact opposite”, there are “a lot of contradicting reports or speculations”, and “that evidence might come that supports the opposite of” each take.

My observation is there are shortened versions of this video circulating the web omitting these parts, painting a different picture.

Given this single interview being used as the source, and with the possibility of not having the full video at hand, I wanted to caution fellow editors to review the entire video linked here first . Ebright82 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to analyze this issue. The COMPLETE video of the interview from the global news website was cited in the text and it is accessible here .

The exact topic of that section was the controversial views of Mortazavi and this interview is one of her controversial views as she brings up the prevalence of plane crashes due to US sanctions on Iran as a reason why Iran's military is refusing to hand over the black boxes.

With regard to WP:original research, while the subject of the interview can be considered as original research, Mortazavi’s opinion is not original research. It is just her opinion and it deserves to be covered.

All in all, it seems like it would be in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy to include her comments word for word as one of her views.

I see the point that she says at the beginning of the interview. However, she recounts several reasons suggesting that this incident is likely not caused by IRGC’s air defense. Here are those arguments:

“the missiles [to Al-Asad] were fired from west of Iran and the flight took off from Tehran, which is in the center, and that’s one important geographic detail to know.”

Moreover, she rejects the authenticity of the TORM1 missile part photos that were circulating on social media at the same time (which she mistakenly refers to as the plane parts). See guardian's report that includes the photos:

She mentions that so far we are waiting for evidence, However, she immediately says:

“because another Ukrainian plane was previously shot down people are reminded of shot downs” [which is inaccurate, that was a Malaysian airline flight that was shot down in Ukrainian airspace]

In response to why the Iranian military is refusing to release the black boxes, she says:

"Well, it could be, but it could be that they want to review first. It could be something nefarious or the exact opposite, we still don’t know what the situation is."

However, she immediately brings up this point:

“And also let’s remember that Iranian airline in the country – this was not an Iranian airline- because Iranian airline -because of sanctions -is an aging fleet, plane crashes in Iran are not very much news. This is a recurring problem and people have heard this news in the past, so they might just be doing their own review of this, and then at the same time, we have to also realize that I don’t see much benefit for Iran in this to shooting down a passenger plane right off from their own capital. now it could all be wrong, evidence could come that supports the opposite of it. but just so far politically, doesn’t make too much sense when we put this together with the big picture of the type and the format of the precise attack that has happened.”

Therefore, I believe it will— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Sanchez 1990 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the discussion, and glad you agree she does preface all points by saying this is speculation at this point.

The major point here is any analyst provides commentary about the situation they are covering. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss if their analyst was correct or not. While there are articles about the missile attack, no reputable primary source covers the role or comments of topic of this page. If the fact that someone comments about a topic, as sad and tragic as this one is, makes the interview part of wikipedia … we would have multiple of pages just for interviews of various analysts.

Even going through the examples you provide, there is nothing notable about this particular interview making it fit for Wikipedia. Ebright82 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to this issue. Since Mortazavi is a high-profile journalist (among 30 inspirational women by Forbes, MENA American leader, etc.), her views are an integral part of her contributions to journalism. For an example of Wikipedia pages reflecting the views of journalists please see or just pure interview transcripts of Sheldon Adelson here . Edits on her views sections might be useful but total removal of sections does not seem to be constructive. The views section is not original research and it is in line with Wikipedia's policy. I hope this clarifies the necessity of including the views section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Sanchez 1990 (talk • contribs)

Let me point at an example (from this diff ) where the changes (now removed) crossed from Wikipedia’s standards and became an “original research” piece (or a blog post):

First, she pointed out the fact that “the missiles [to Al-Asad] were fired from west of Iran and the flight took off from Tehran, which is in the center, and that’s one important geographic detail to know.” Second, she mentions that “because another Ukrainian plane was previously shot do …

Above is original research. You are quoting from other sources (valid or not, beside the point) and constructing a view. That’s not what Wikipedia is. One can publish their view in a reputable media accepted by Wiki’s standards, then let it be cited on Wikipedia.

That is precisely what you see in the pages you linked (Duranty, Adelson). Every other sentence there is a citation either to their work (without an attached original opinion piece) or a reputable external material which does form an opinion. Example:

Since the late 1960s, Duranty's work has come increasingly under fire for failing to report the famine. Robert Conquest was critical of Duranty's reporting in The Great Terror (1968), The Harvest of Sorrow (1986) and, most recently, in Reflections on a Ravaged Century (1990). Joseph Alsop and Andrew Stuttaford spoke out against Duranty during the Pulitzer Prize controversy.

In the above, Wikipedia is just a summary of these external points. None are published on that article, they are summarized there.

Also Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP. These articles themselves have “citation needed” markers. As editors, we want to improve quality of other article not copy their shortcomings. Ebright82 (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The text that was mentioned was in response to the previous discussion in the talk about the need for the interview transcript, this transcript from global news was used in the views section. No view is being "constructed" in this section and this is merely a reflection of views. If there is need for improvement, you could adjust the text instead of removing the entire section. Thank you for your attention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Sanchez 1990 (talk • contribs)

References

Looking at what's in that example of removed content, it seems to cross the line Ebright82 has reasonably setup when it goes into what these reasons mentioned are. It should be enough to say that when the incident happened she believed it to early to tell what had happened but was doubtful of the IRGC shooting down the plane. Full stop, focus on her beliefs. Link to the incident so people then can see what did happen, with no substantive concerns in this article. I agree with Jeremy that her views are relevant to an article on her journalism career, but also agree with Ebright that those views should not be seen as substantive to the matter they're about as they're not research of any type. Nic T R (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

NIAC affiliation

I've heard that Mortazavi only worked for NIAC for six months in 2014. Trying to find a reference. If that's indeed the case I don't think we should have a whole section about NIAC in her entry. roozbeh (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The NIAC announcement says she started and ended in 2014 which means less than one year.

https://www.niacouncil.org/news_publications/niac-welcomes-new-media-and-communications-staff/ Nov2000 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Notability and Secondary Sources

Added references for the Iran Disinfo investigation which was widely reported in the media. Also, added sources for the Brazil coverage. Given the above, I propose removing notability and secondary sources issues. Ebright82 (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Negarmortazavi.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of criticisms section

A criticisms section had been added. It cited three sources:

1. https://iranianamericansforliberty.org/pages/statements, in its petition to Forbes to withdraw its selection of her as an inspirational woman
2. https://twitter.com/hosseinronaghi/status/1369742762799755265, which is unreliable as a self-published source
3. https://chicagomaroon.com/36976/news/breaking-critics-of-iop-panelist-send-bomb-threat-staff-sent-home, the University of Chicago's student newspaper

A full section on criticisms cannot stand with the first two sources. However, the Maroon story is sufficient to show that events have been cancelled due to threats of violence directed at her. —C.Fred (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

From the Committee to Protect Journalists:

“The bomb threat against journalist Negar Mortazavi was a crude attempt at censorship. Unfortunately, this event is just one example of the onslaught of threats and harassment that Mortazavi and other Iranian journalists face for simply doing their jobs–and these threats must stop,” said Katherine Jacobsen, CPJ’s U.S. and Canada program coordinator. “U.S. authorities should investigate the recent threats against Mortazavi and ensure that all journalists working in the country, regardless of their nationality or the origin of the threats, can do their jobs without fear of retaliation.”

https://cpj.org/2022/10/cpj-condemns-harassment-bomb-threat-against-iranian-american-journalist-negar-mortazavi/ Nov2000 (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Another press freedom organization seems to have condemned the harassment as well

https://www.womeninjournalism.org/threats-all/United-States-CFWIJ-Extends-Solidarity-With-Journalist-Negar-Mortazavi-Who-Hit-With-Waves-Of-Online-Attacks-Over-A-Decade Nov2000 (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I continue to maintain that a student newspaper at a major university is a reliable source. In light of a recent tit-for-tat removal of the entire section after an unreliable conservative source was struck, I backed down to just what was reported by a network news station in Chicago. —C.Fred (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort online to smear and discredit Iranian journalists including Mortezavi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nov2000 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some acts of vandalism were committed on the page, mostly to Negar Mortazavi's name. However, the recent tit-for-tat removal occured following the abrupt and hasty removal of some contributions made in light of the recent protests and forthcoming colour revolution in Iran; despite the fact that most had credible sources.

I think the matter needs to be discussed here and if a decision cannot be reached, I am happy to request a third opinion through dispute resolution. SP 21:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have made a few further edits to neutralize the tone of the article. Please discuss if you deem any section as "libellous". SP 21:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov2000, I beleive this matter needs to be referred to "content dispute resolution" SP 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Controversies

@Mshahrokh: Hi. I was editing the article for the past hour and when I came to publish, I ran into an edit conflict. I did not revert any of your changes as I can see in Special:Diff/1120228907. I also did not return the content you removed. please review and modify my revision if needed. Jeeputer ^Talk 21:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Hi. Can you please explain how strongly sourced content which has a wide coverage on reliable sources is in violation of WP:BLP? does that policy cover every negative content about a person? if so, we should remove any material about criminals or other people who have done bad things, right?

In addition, can you please tell me how can we reach a consensus when the user does not respond and keeps reverting edits instead? You also removed the COI tag as "completely unsubstantiated", but the user has been here for 2 years only to edit this single article across multiple wikis (at least fawiki and enwiki) and this should be enough to at least ask about the presence of COI. i added the tag after i asked and they didn't respond even though they reverted my edit. I reported that to WP:AN/COI. Jeeputer ^Talk 00:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeeputer, your edits ([1], [2], [3]) constitute a particularly egregious violation of Wikipedia's content policies on living persons and are likely to result in severe administrative sanctions if you continue. Among other things:

• You added text stating that "These incidents have made the public view towards Negar Mortazavi very negative, and have portrayed her as an active apologist for the Islamic Republic regime's actions. One well-respected Iranian blogger who has always warned the public about NIAC and Negar Mortazavi is Hossein Ronaghi who was arrested and tortured by regime in 2022." This material was written in a strikingly non-neutral, essay-like tone, and did not cite any sources, making it unverifiable.
• You introduced content from The National Telegraph, which appears to be little more than a blog affiliated with a Canadian YouTube channel pushing extreme right-wing misinformation and conspiracy theories with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, to accuse Mortazavi of faking a bomb threat, despite reliable sources confirming that the bomb threat was real ([4], [5]).
• You wrote that Mortazavi "was one of the NIAC affiliates who supported the relief of the sanctions against Iran and stated that the ongoing protests are 'simply about forced hijab' and that the people want a reform, not a regime change in Iran." However, The Jerusalem Post opinion article that you cited is not reliable for factual statements in wikivoice per WP:RSEDITORIAL, only mentions Mortazavi in passing, and does not clearly attribute these sentiments to her. In addition, your edit incorrectly presents the "simply about forced hijab" comment as though it is a direct quote from Mortazavi, when it was actually written by the author of the opinion article. Contrary to your edit, reliable sources, such as The New Republic ([6]), make clear that Mortazavi is an outspoken supporter of the Mahsa Amini protests and that "Mortazavi has been vocal about her support for the largely female protests in her home country."

There are also several examples in which you misused primary sources to justify sweeping assertions not directly substantiated by the sources in question, in violation of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH:

• You stated that "Negar Mortazavi is known for her close relationships with the Iranian diplomats and especially reformists in Iran and has frequently met with Islamic Republic Foreign Minister of President Hassan Rohani, Javad Zarif," citing only the aforementioned "The National Telegraph" and a Politico interview with Zarif that was conducted by Mortazavi in her capacity as a journalist. It is not unusual for journalists to interview senior government officials.
• You stated that "As [sic] a pivotal point for her career, she denied the claims that Islamic Republic of Iran and IRGC shot down the Ukrainian flight PS752 and later tried to defend the regime in accepting its responsibility," citing a source that you misleadingly labelled "mortazavi denial of PS752." However, no source by that name exists; the source that you linked to—"Iran commentator Negar Mortazavi discusses the tragic plane crash hours after attack on U.S. bases"—is dated 8 January 2020, the same day as the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 incident, and contains no such noteworthy "denial," only a caveat to the effect that "It's too early to tell." You did not provide any secondary sources to establish the significance of this comment.
• You stated that "In another incident, Negar Mortazavi tried to discredit the United States Department of State assessment of Islamic Republic of Iran massacre of close to 1500 people in 2019 protests," citing a source that you misleadingly labelled "Mortazavi denial." However, no source by that name exists; the source that you linked to—"Iran Protests: Interview with Diplomatic Correspondent Negar Mortazavi," dated 6 December 2019—seemingly makes clear that the figure cited by the Trump administration's hawkish State Department was an outlier relative to contemporaneous reporting by independent human rights observers such as Amnesty International (which cited a "confirmed death toll" of 208 at the time). Moreover, your edit confused the chronology and misrepresented the State Department's position. In fact, Reuters (not the State Department) reported the 1,500 figure on 23 December 2019, citing "three [unnamed] Iranian interior ministry officials". In its report, Reuters acknowledged that "[t]he toll of 1,500 is significantly higher than figures from international human rights groups and the United States. A Dec. 16 report by Amnesty International said the death toll was at least 304. The U.S. State Department, in a statement to Reuters, said it estimates that many hundreds of Iranians were killed, and has seen reports that number could be over 1,000." In sum: The Reuters reporting is contested, and it is not "denial" to question the veracity of the 1,500 figure (if it were, then the State Department itself could be said to have engaged in such "denial".) However, Mortazavi did not question (let alone "deny") the 23 December 2019 reporting weeks earlier on 6 December 2019, at least not without the aid of a time machine.

The above behavior is unacceptable and inconsistent with Wikipedia's core content policies. It may fly on the Persian Wikipedia, but not on the English-language version. Here, if you persist in disrupting the encyclopedia, your editing privileges may be restricted or revoked entirely, so proceed with caution.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: Thank you. First of all, let's make it clear that Special:Diff/1120228907 is my initial edit which was reverted multiple times. I'm just responsible about what I wrote.

• not mine The "These incidents have made the public view towards Negar Mortazavi..." stuff is not something i would like to add to an article.
• I agree with you about the National Telegraph and now I know that it's unreliable. But when I use sources that I believe are reliable, there should be a warning, discussion or something. Nov2000 answered none of my questions until you reverted my edits.
• I didn't mean to attribute the statement "simply about forced hijab" to Mortazavi, but meant to quote from the source. maybe the content could be written in a better way; something I could not do (I'm not a native English speaker).
• not mine Again, the statement "Negar Mortazavi is known for her close relationships with the Iranian diplomats..." is not added by me. I am familiar with the no original research policy and will never say someone is in connection with someone else simply because they interviewed them.
• not mine And again, the statement "As [sic] a pivotal point..." is not my content.
• not mine This one too is not my content. I never added content about PS752 flight. If you are talking about this revision, It was a content that was deleted by Nov2000 and I just wanted to restore my revision consisting the "Controversies" section, some corrections and additions to the lead and a tag to the "Career" section. They could let me know if I restored inappropriate content, but no one responds to my talk page messages.

Eventually, I want "Controversies" section back on the articles with modifications. I'm here to discuss the content and make it suitable based on the content policies.

You also did not answer my question about COI and the reason you removed the COI tag. Jeeputer ^Talk 06:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

BTW The implementation of BLP policy on the Persian Wikipedia is not very strict. But I am so strict in this regard that I have blocked many users for this reason (something you won't regularly see from fawiki administrators) and this issue has also led to disputes (Users there do not accept such level of strictness) . My approach is the same on the English Wikipedia. Jeeputer ^Talk 06:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Jeeputer, it doesn't matter if you are the original author of the text; if you reinstate a WP:BLP violation into an article (multiple times at that!) after it has been challenged on BLP grounds, you are taking responsibility for the edit.

This article has obviously been the target of a massive WP:MEATPUPPET attack, likely related to the sock/meat farm identified by GeneralNotability at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy Sanchez 1990/Archive, which never really went away and has been reinvigorated by the recent protests in Iran to resume disrupting articles on liberal Iranian-American women such as Farnaz Fassihi and Mortazavi.

Your concern that Nov2000 may be a single-purpose account with few or no edits unrelated to Mortazavi is noted, but it seems remarkably selective compared to your silence (or worse, active collaboration) in the face of the tag-team editing by throwaway SPAs such as Reza Khavarie (few edits unrelated to Mortazavi), Dinaraoufi (no edits unrelated to Mortazavi), Persian warrior88 (no edits unrelated to Mortazavi or Trita Parsi), InthenameofMahsa (no edits unrelated to Mortazavi and with a username explicitly referencing the Mahsa Amini protests), Amirrrrrrrrezaaaaa (no edits unrelated to Mortazavi), Khobar2022 (few edits unrelated to Mortazavi), Saeedpilot (a "sleeper account" that was reactivated after four years of inactivity to edit Mortazavi's article), and Mshahrokh (another apparent "sleeper account" with just one edit in the preceding 16 months that was reactivated in October 2022 to edit Mehdi Torabi and Negar Mortazavi). At least Nov2000's edits accurately reflect mainstream narratives reported in English-language reliable sources, unlike the aforementioned editors, Gharouni, and yourself, all of whom routinely cite unreliable sources or social media while misrepresenting the few reliable sources you do cite.

Although it is not binding Wikipedia policy, dedicated "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections are generally discouraged by the community. WP:NOCRIT identifies several problems with dedicated "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections, including that they may "call undue attention to negative viewpoints" and that "Segregation of text or other content into different subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents." On a related note, WP:POVFORK, which is Wikipedia policy, states: "There is currently no consensus whether a 'Criticism of...' article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems. If possible, refrain from using 'criticism' and instead use neutral terms such as 'perception' or 'reception' ... " Certainly, we have many articles on far more contentious figures than Mortazavi that do not feature dedicated "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections; a The Jerusalem Post opinion article that only mentions Mortazavi in passing, combined with several unreliable social media posts and WP:OR criticisms by Wikipedia users, is a remarkably weak basis for incorporating such a dedicated section here.

If this article is restored to a previous revision, then it should be to a version predating the current (September 2022–present) protests in Iran and the ensuing meatpuppet attack, e.g. the revision dated 00:09, 6 June 2022.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: I know that I have violated some rules and I'm trying to learn (The rules are stricter on the English Wikipedia). But let's skip the content issue for now. I'm not selecting users. I explained here the reason I'm talking about Nov2000 and did not review the rest of the page's history. My "active collaboration" with users you mentioned is just a result of common interest: Iranian protests and what is related to it. I've been fighting huge vandalism or disruptive editing on my home wiki for the past 2 months. Same here. As you can also see at section below, I'm trying to check the COI issue claimed at the TV program. The woman in the TV accused Nov2000 of spreading "lies", I just took action (although unsuccessful) to balance the content. I'm a Wikipedian, not just a random person passing by and try to test the edit functionality. And when I see something about Wikipedia in the media, I probably pay more attention than most people. Jeeputer ^Talk 21:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you here just to remove material from this article?

@Nov2000: Hi. As far as I can see, you have been editing on Wikipedia for almost 2 years, but the only article you edited is this one and many of your edits are reverted. The history of content removal by you goes back to April 2021, mostly removing material about Mortazavi's connecting with the Iranian government (for example, this edit or your recent edits). A question arises here: Are you in connection with Negar Mortazavi and therefore have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article? Jeeputer ^Talk 22:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to mention that the content you are removing establishes the subject's notability (such as recent controversies, Disinfo investigation issue, etc.). Jeeputer ^Talk 22:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You keep adding unsubstantiated accusations and false and outdated info about this person with no sources. You added that she is a spokesperson for NIAC an organization she briefly worked at years ago. How is she their a spokesperson if she left in 2014 and her name is nowhere mentioned on their website? I found no current source of her ever speaking on behalf of this organization. If you see any please add it here. https://www.niacouncil.org/news_publications/niac-welcomes-new-media-and-communications-staff/ Nov2000 (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nov2000: I asked about conflict of Interest. Jeeputer ^Talk 06:33, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Libel against a living person

Here is a note from Wikipedia: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. Nov2000 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What sources in the disputed material are you claiming were "tabloid journalism" or "self-published", exactly? Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Bearcat, this "source" is probably the most egregious example.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Repeated vandalization with libel

This page seems to be under a coordinated attack by a group who seem to have an agenda and keep adding libelous and unfounded accusations against a living person with no credible source. The only link they have added is a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that makes no mention of this person (Mortazavi) anywhere in the piece but is being used as the main source of these accusations. Nov2000 (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nov2000 Just to remind you this is wikipedia not twitter. Make yourself familiar with wikipedia policies especially vandalism and edit war. Thanks. Gharouni ^Talk 14:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Administrator note: I have upped the page protection to admin-only (since it was already on autoconfirmed protection). I don't know what's right and what's wrong here, and am concerned that a person directly involved in the dispute came admin shopping to find me even though I've never had any involvement here at all, but I have still protected it on the version that existed as of the time I was brought in, without regard to what side of the dispute happened to have the upper hand as of that time, but I would stress that this is not necessarily an endorsement of their version — it's just that the editwarring needed to stop right away, so I would obviously request that the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the disputed material be discussed here on the talk page by people with more knowledge of the subject than I have. I will, of course, happily reduce it back to autoconfirmed protection again if and when the dispute is resolved, but since there was already partial page protection on it I didn't mess with the existing time. Editwarring over this must stop, and the material must be discussed. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat Hi. Thanks for protection upgrade. Of course it was admin hoping as the user has not engaged in any conversation here. If you please read above talks and please check users wikipedia experience and have a look at the article's edit history. You can simply find out who has engaged in edit waring and WP:3RR I have only reverted one edit that I found it was vandalism and made some correction based on my wikipedia edit experience and understanding. You as an admin can check the sources to get the right idea. @Nov2000 is a twitter user and got all of their idea from twitter and most likely has conflict of interest. Gharouni ^Talk 15:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat: Hi. the content of my revision was removed by Nov2000 stating "This has already been discussed before" with no links, but I could not find the mentioned discussion here, at least the discussion related to my content. I reverted their edits (and you know about other reverts, I'm not going to mention them here). I came here to discuss multiple times and pinged Nov2000, but no answer came up (see above). I know I should not do that, but I spent more than an hour to find sources and edit that article (see my first comment at #Controversies), but Nov2000 referred me to a non-existing (or unrelated) discussion. My content could be discussed and modified, not just deleted based on nothing.

Nov2000's edits showed up on an Iran International TV program last night and mentioned by Sana Ebrahimi (one of Mortazavi's critics involved in denial of the bomb threat) as "lies being added to the article" (mentioning TheTimesAreAChanging who wonders where these editors (including me) came from). After the program, many Twitter users (example) scrutinized the issue. I'm not going to quote what they said/are saying, but there's a strong probability of WP:COI. based on Special:CentralAuth/Nov2000, they edited Mortazavi's article on Persian Wikipedia 3 times, this article and its talk on English Wikipedia 90 times and tried to upload Mortazavi's photo 5 times on Commons. outside this topic, they only edited your (Bearcat) talk page 2 times.

@Bearcat again: you said that reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Negar Mortazavi needs checkuser rights, but I don't think so. As far as I know, you just need to review their behavior around the subject to recognize conflict of interest. How can we know if a user is connected to a person based on their IP address while we don't know the person's IP address anyways? Thank you for you comment here and I wish you (or any other administrator; not admin shopping :D) review the COI case soon. Jeeputer ^Talk 21:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no applicable evidence here. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, there are a cadre of Wikipedia contributors who do have the ability to access editors' IP numbers — while that information isn't universally accessible to everybody, there are people on Wikipedia who do have the ability to access it. And then the IP can easily be checked for questions like "is this IP number registered to the subject's own employer", or "is this IP number geographically located in the city where the subject is known to live". And simply "reviewing" an editor's "behaviour" actually isn't enough in and of itself, as"conflict of interest" is an allegation that routinely gets thrown around whenever editors don't agree with other editors' edits — even I've been accused of trying to "protect" article subjects simply for acting as an administrator to shut down problematic content that wasn't properly sourced. So no, that isn't enough in and of itself, especially if I don't already have the prior background knowledge of the subject to know what's right and what's wrong.

Which, again, is why I am not taking on the job of sorting out what's appropriate and what's inappropriate here myself — my job here began and ended at stopping the editwarring, and it ain't my responsibility to take on the job of sorting out the problem that led to the editwarring. You're going to have to look to other people for that, because I do not have the necessary knowledge of Negar Mortazavi's work to do it myself. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bearcat Good day. Your language here is very sharp (do), I don't feel comfortable reading it. I like to remind you, you are talking to experienced Wikipedians not a new user or WP:SPA (or maybe WP:PAID or WP:COI). Your job as a Wikipedian, as well as stopping WP:EW (that has not been reverted to before dispute edit) is to make sure an article in wikipedia is based on WP:RSand WP:IS. You can easily check WP:PAGE. You can see in page history that I only had one or two edits that have been reverted by one user, User Jeeputer had a few edits that they have been reverted by the same user. In the page history simply you can find out who performed WP:3RR and edit war or who is editing in good faith even if they made a mistake. You can check user's edits, you can find a lot from them. To end this I give you an example: I am NOT a heart surgeon/heart physician etc. but as a wikipedian I might be able to create an acceptable article in wikipedia about it only based on some academic/reliable sources, other editors will fix mistakes and expand the article and this will go on. You do not have necessary knowledge about Negar Mortazavi, that is fine, but as a wikipedian you can read what was provided after a sentence as source, then you can find if this source reliable, independent etc. You may ask for 3rd opinion and encourage users to WP:DR. Thanks. Gharouni ^Talk 15:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you read m:The Wrong Version. "There are no reports of an administrator ever having protected the "right" version." 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Gharouni ^Talk 03:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's is fine. However, what about other issues like reported COI case or 3RR? Gharouni ^Talk 05:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no conflict of interest that I can see. You have provided zero evidence. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Recognition

On October 18, 2022, Mortazavi was invited to speak at the University of Chicago conference titled "The Power of Iranian Women Now" about the nationwide protests in Iran. This event caught the attention of the Iranian all around the world, as well as Internet users in Iran, and was met with disapproval from them. The protesters claimed that Mortazavi was working on behalf of the Iranian government. He has always denied this claim. This meeting was changed from a face-to-face meeting to a virtual program after threats were announced[14][15].

A local student media in Chicago in America later reported that students and staff at the Institute of Political Science at the university there were forced to evacuate the building because of a "bomb threat" due to Mortazavi's presence. [16] Mortazavi himself wrote on Twitter that the bomb threat was related to his presence at a roundtable discussion at that institution.[12] That claim was denied after investigative reporters contacted local Chicago police.[14][17]

References: References are available on Negar Mortazavi's Wikipedia page in Persian. 2A02:3032:20A:D494:50FB:CB30:D742:C899 (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

October 18, 2022, University of Chicago Speech

University of Chicago Conference (Translated from Wikipedia page in Persian)

On October 18, 2022, Mortazavi was invited to a speech at the University of Chicago titled "The Power of Iranian Women Now" about the nationwide protests in Iran. This event caught the attention of the Iranian community in America and Canada, as well as Internet users in Iran, and was met with disapproval from a group of them. The protesters claimed that Mortazavi works for the benefit of the Iranian government. He has always denied this claim. This meeting was changed from a face-to-face program to a virtual one after threats were announced[14][15].

A local student media in Chicago in America later reported that students and staff at that city's university's Institute of Political Science were forced to evacuate the building because of a "bomb threat" due to Mortazavi's presence. [16] Mortazavi himself wrote on Twitter that the bomb threat was related to his presence at a roundtable at that institution. [12] This claim was denied after investigative journalists contacted local Chicago police. [14][17]

References: References are available on Negar Mortazavi's Wikipedia page in Persian. 2A02:3032:20A:D494:50FB:CB30:D742:C899 (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 January 2023

There is a citation to a ARTICLE19 report that never mentions Negar Mortazavi. Please remove the mention of ARTICLE19 and that report on this page (citation 30). Shilan1401 (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are correct, and no one else has commented, so I have removed that citation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

EPROT

@Bearcat: looks like the BLP's have all been with autoconfirmed users, any objection to lowering this to EPROT? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Protection lowered — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The Article 19 report seems to have anonymized all interviewees and there is no mention of the names of any of the journalists interviewed in the report. It is a very relevant source as the report is about the online harassment that Iranian female journalists outside Iran, including Mortazavi, have been subjected to.

Please keep the source as it is relevant to the subject. I am not sure why they requested to remove a relevant source to a report from a credible organization. Nov2000 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)