Talk:Golriz Ghahraman

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand: Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Shoplifter and hypocrisy

Controversies and WP:UNDUE

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Golriz Ghahraman (permalink)

There is an ongoing discussion on WP:BLPN regarding NPOV issues (specifically WP:UNDUE) with this page, and the (contextual) reliability of the sources in use. You are invited to participate in the discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues

Today's edits, in my view, make the BLP issues here worse: instead of a separate section at the bottom of the article dealing with the issue (that already needed pruning), it fills her main biography with opinionated guff (intensifying the focus on it) rather than removing it. I see no justification for the second paragraph of the present controversy section remaining in the article and am not particularly impressed at it being given more prominence by those claiming to be enforcing BLP. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit – [1] – did not "fill her main biography with opinionated guff", but in fact, your reversion – [2] – re-added most of it back. I have removed the contentious material and the "controversies" section that you restored until this serious BLP issue is conclusively resolved on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: - As I said on your talk page, I erred by not realising that you'd written your own version rather than re-adding the previous editor's problematic one. Suddenly refusing to accept your own version is bizarre and unhelpful. I don't see why you've suddenly decided to try to remove this extremely well-documented issue in reliable sources which you had not been remotely suggesting removing until ten minutes ago, which solely now serves to prolong a dispute. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: I am OK with restoring this version – [3]. The complete removal was in response to your reversion of my edit – [4] with an edit summary that seemed equally bizzare at that time ("you're re-adding an WP:UNDUE issue to the article I've removed it. please take it to talk rather than trying to revert-war as it's more than capable of being resolved in that case"). If you are amenable to accepting this version (10:46, 6 October 2018‎), then I am happy to restore it. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said (for the third time), I had incorrectly assumed you were re-adding the previous editor's problematic edit, given that you were using a very similar edit summary. I told you in my previous message on your talk page that I was amenable to accepting that edit, asked you to revert to your own edit, and yet was met with an extremely aggressive refusal on my talk page, so I'm glad you've apparently come around to accepting your own version. It's been clear all along that I've basically agreed with you about the overall problem but differed slightly on the wording, and your very aggressive responses to everything have made this way messier than it needed to be. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that my behaviour was aggressive, then please provide diffs to substantiate those claims. You have not done so. Instead, all we have seen is a slapdash attitude towards editing (by your own admission above), and overall combative behaviour. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:04, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to prove anything, just pointing out that trying to continually fight someone who 90% agrees with you and is trying to workshop the remaining 10% is pointless for anything else than creating unnecessary conflict. Having someone behave so instinctively aggressively that they'll initially oppose their own text is a new one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence:

She had worked on tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, volunteering as an intern; while she claimed that she was assigned to the defence team, some, such as former New Zealand Labour Party staffer Phil Quin, has claimed that she did so voluntarily, for "work experience".

is confusing and undue. It appears in the pre-parliament section, but the controversy is already discussed in the political career section. The sentence is set up as if there are contradictory accounts, but they both say she was volunteering. Nowhere in Quin's article does he dispute that she was assigned the case while working as an intern. Also the context is weird - Quin is speaking as Kagame's PR consultant, not a "former Labour staffer". -- haminoon (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this edit, though I might point out that none of the sources currently in the article support the claim that she was "assigned" to the defence either (although this explanation elsewhere does). This said, I feel like we're getting to the point where an NPOV line has been crossed here: we've now got an article which completely accepts Gharaman's side of the story, entirely omits her critics, and omits the controversy over the genocide denialist Peter Robinson paper she co-wrote entirely. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The peer reviewed paper you refer to is not a work of genocide denial. Since Robinson's Wikipedia article doesn't call him a "genocide denialist" there's no reason this article should. -- haminoon (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that notable people in reliable sources have, in fact, called it genocide denialist - a fact referred to in the cite you just added to the article. Gharaman has an interesting excuse for it, but I don't believe that omitting it entirely is compatible with NPOV coverage of the issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's correct. The only person who appears to have said that is Phil Quin, who later apologised for saying it. Quin is not notable in his own right - i.e. he wouldn't qualify for his own Wikipedia article. -- haminoon (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have added the reference for being assigned to the case. -- haminoon (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]