Talk:Neema Parvini

When someone gets the time

Add something about his activity on YouTube, as I described above he goes by the name the "Academic Agent", something should be said about it. If someone doesn´t get to it first, I will add an additional infobox about him as YouTuber. StrongALPHA (talk) 09:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Unless independent reliable sources have paid attention to it, it's insignificant and not worth mentioning. Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I found a ref that discusses it and have added the text with the source. I don't think it needs an infobox. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Parvini is labelled as Altright because of his association with Richard Spencer

I will remove this description if it anyone can persudae me. Please express your feelings. StrongALPHA (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

What sources do you have that characterize Parvini as "alt-right"? Schazjmd (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

look through going Richard Spencer´s twitter going back to July or early August, I don´t think he self-identifies with the term but he is knee-deep in that ecosystem. StrongALPHA (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:BLPSPS. Got any The Times? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP edits

This article is currently under discussion at WP:BLPN. I recently made significant edits to this article to conform with WP:BLP. I hope to devolve the BLPN discussion to this talk page for now. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JFHJr, could you explain more about your latest edit? It's standard to list an author's books in their article; those are just basic facts, not an issue of WP:WEIGHT. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure! Indication of the publications' significance is how we avoid WP:RESUME. It is not customary to list every last insignificant publication of an academic or writer. I'm not opposed to there being a section. But the entries' WP:WEIGHT (encyclopedic noteworthiness) should be actually and somehow supported. JFHJr (㊟) 23:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm hoping the IP contributor at the BLPN discussion will turn here for further immediate concerns. I don't plan on watching this page, so ping me, talk page me, or come back to BLPN if there's a BLP issue. I'm not wedded to my edits, so feel free to do whatever a WP:CONSENSUS supports. This BLP does deserve a well supported Publications section. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 00:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

...Shakespeare though? Gimme a break. JFHJr (㊟) 00:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@JFHJr, I don't understand your comment. Parvini's academic specialty is Shakespeare. Schazjmd (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The whole subsection was previously supported by one subject affiliated ref. Thank you for improving it. JFHJr (㊟) 03:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Poorly sourced libelous and defamtory claims should be removed.

• What I think should be changed:

The following line:

In 2024 Hope Not Hate described his work as "extreme" and aligned with the "scientific racist community" [9]

Should be removed.

• Why it should be changed:

Information is libelous, defamatory and poorly sourced. Page shows all publications by author all of which are mainstream, none of which are "extreme" or engage in "scientific racism". Sources makes assertions without evidence. The book Shakespeare's Moral Compass specifically states, p. 55: "The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that, despite typical variations in physical and mental abilities within groups, biologically speaking, people everywhere are essentially the same in their natural capacities, even if not wholly identical. People vary much more within groups than between groups", buttressed by footnote 57 on p. 69n. The only other discussion of race in author's works occur in chapter on Gobineu in The Prophets of Doom in which it is made clear that Gobineu is not discussing race in a scientific biological way (see recent review of this book here: https://chroniclesmagazine.org/recent-features/from-myth-to-mob-rule-and-back-again/).

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

See above.

84.21.135.36 (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: This sentence is adequately source and quoted correctly. It's a quote from a publication, and their opinion - not fact. If there's material to dispute this it could also be included (e.g. "However, X source said it is not") Encoded   Talk 💬 09:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Removal of far-right tag

• What I think should be changed:

tag should be removed.

• Why it should be changed:

Author is not far right and has consistently described his positions as being those of the "sensible centre". Not affilated with any groups. No credible sources make this claim. Libelous and defamtatory in nature.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

This article outlines how the author is a member of the sensible centre: https://merionwest.com/2018/08/27/why-i-object-to-a-left-vs-right-political-spectrum/ as does this: https://praxarchy.com/prophets-of-doom-and-the-sensible-centre-2/

84.21.135.36 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

References

 Not done: I believe the article is balanced and sufficiently sourced, whilst the article's subject may not agree with it, "sensible centre" is their opinion and the Hope Not Hate section is sufficiently sourced, and can be included as their opinion. This is balanced with the addition of the John Sparrow section directly after. Encoded  Talk 💬 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of recent edits

Recent changes made to include a piece in the Mallard by "John Sparrow" should be taken with caution, it appears to be a puff piece written for the express purpose of including on this page and itself contains unsubstantiated claims about MI5. Recommend this page is locked and edits removed.

I reviewed the Mallard article. This is clearly just a piece about the history and activities of Hope Not Hate, the author only brings up Parvini as a notable example due to there being a clear record of his university works that clearly contradict the comments in the report.Fortynightsinspce (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The article does not contradict the Hope not hate report, the Hope not hate report is based upon the social media account of Parvini, which they give examples of. The contents of that article are opinion and do not act as rebuttal to the claims made by Hope not hate, such as comparing black people to 'homo erectus', I found no other works or articles by 'John Sparrow' to give any indication that it isn't a pseudonym for the purpose of rebutting the content of this Wikipedia page, and with respect your account appears to have been set up today also. 94.195.125.49 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm with the other guy, look at the research in the article, that's not something you just collect in a few days. It is impossible for it to be a "rebuttal"-piece, the Parvini part is just a demonstration of how careless Hope not Hate is in their methods. I'd also like to point out that the claims made by Hope not Hate is unsubstantiated, it's just claims that these things have been said, no links to see context or similar, maybe it's a quote, who knows? In all honesty I think the whole thing should just be removed on that ground. 2A02:AA7:4629:944B:5D48:29F2:D9D:658D (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Pandering to Hope not Hate

There is a clear smear campaign against Mr Parvini by the Hope not Hate organisation, due to the inclusion of their libellous claims against him in the article.

Key member of the institute, Matthew Collins, has openly acknowledged his political membership to the Communist party of Britain; communism as an ideology is responsible for the death of tens of millions within the last century.

All slander from such a genocidal political faction, against Mr Parvini should be wiped due to the clear and problematic bias such an institute has.

If the libellous attacks against Mr Parvini aren't cleared, then one can only assume there is a horrifyingly coordinated attempt to politically purge such an upstanding member of British society.

SoyEnjoyer (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SoyEnjoyer,

The article contains multiple viewpoints from multiple angles, including ones that dispute the hope not hate article. Whilst the article's subject and yourself may not agree with it, the hope not hate article is sufficiently sourced and can be included.

Wikipedia has robust policies in place to prevent unbalanced or unsourced biography articles, and I do not believe this article violates them policies.

If you have any further questions please leave another message.

Encoded  Talk 💬 09:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is the source? I see nothing but claims. 2A02:AA7:4629:944B:81C7:392C:9206:F23A (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Also why did you remove the counter-point from The Mallard? 2A02:AA7:4629:944B:81C7:392C:9206:F23A (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I did not remove it, it was removed by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång for WP:SPS.

The source for hope not hate is refs 10 ([1]) and 11 ([2]). Wikipedia is not saying that these claims made by HNH are true or false, we're just saying that's what HNH said, which is true (HNH did say that about Neema).

Hope this helps, Encoded  Talk 💬 22:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I understand that and The Mallard says that those claims are unsubstantiated which is a pretty important addition. That may also be true or false, we can't say but it's just as important as HnH's claims. 2A02:AA7:4629:944B:ED20:AE06:F2E5:4C2 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no way the Mallard article meets WP:RS. Not only is the writer of the piece essentially anonymous, with no evident subject-matter expertise, but the article being cited makes the absurd claim that Hope not Hate is linked to MI5. The article is peddling conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly he has subject-matter expertise, just look at the references he is making on Hope Not Hate, this is weeks if not months of research I'd guess.

As for conspiracy theory, that specific part is clearly marked as a theory and therefore it's a bit silly to claim that he is "peddling" conspiracy theories as he is not attempting to portray it as fact but simply a likely theory, it also seems to be describing actions similar to how the National Endowment for Democracy appears to have been used externally by the CIA so the theory itself is not completely farfetched and we would have to call ourselves for peddlers of conspiracy theories in this case. 2A02:AA7:464E:61C7:9517:5E8B:3099:F6CE (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have a very strange idea as to how subject matter expertise is demonstrated. It has absolutely nothing to do with how many months of 'research' you think someone has done writing something. Find some evidence that other credible sources have cited the Mallard article, and/or cited Sparrow on the subject elsewhere, and we'd have something to talk about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Note also their about-page [3], very WP:BLOG-ish. Not good for a WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)