Talk:Apsara Iyer

Palestinian Article Edits

Hello!

I'm dropping this topic on the talk page because a this section on current events has sparked an increased number of edits. I recently reverted some edits changing the section title from "controversy" to "submission" and eliminating accurate and relevant information. Those edits are explained in the relevant description section, but I want to create a space for discussion should there be any disagreement.

Given an earlier attempt to delete this article unjustifiably (on the basis that it had a sole author, when it did not), it seems important to make sure editors are communicating clearly about major changes to this article.

All the best!

Arcendeight (talk)

---

Hi Jaipurgal (talk · contribs),

I noticed you've reverted a series of edits and eliminated information in this section that seems very germane to the subject heading, including the fact - well-documented in the sources you deleted - that the incident is controversial, as well as changing the title of the section accordingly. For the reasons given in my prior reversion of this same edit. I will do so again.

The first time you made these changes, you explained that the title was "hateful." You have now once again removed this information as "not relevant." Under Wikipedia's NPOV policy on describing controversies, the description of an issue as a controversy is entirely appropriate. I am concerned by these diverging reasons for eliminating the same content.

I invite you to explain your reasons for the changes on this page, since this series of repeated reversions does the article no good.

Separately, I want to bring your attention to Wikipedia's "edit warring" policy and invite you to pursue dispute resolution on this issue by any the more experienced editors who have worked on this page recently in order to avoid repeated reversions.

Warmly, Arcendeight (talk)

---

Hello,

Sorry if I've formatted my discussion on the talk page incorrectly - still learning here! Anyways, as explained in the justification of my deletion, I'm skeptical of the accuracy of the sources cited in this section since they ultimately derive from Eghbariah himself, either as an author of the source or as an interviewee. Per Wikipedia's "People Who Are Relatively Unknown" subsection on the "Biographies of living persons" page, editors should "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources" and treat material "that may adversely affect a person's reputation" with "special care." Accordingly, I recommend that this section be outright deleted and welcome others' thoughts.

Edit: I also suspect several people who have edited this page (not Arcendeight) are personally involved in the controversy and accordingly fall under the "Use in continued disputes" subsection, which states that "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual . . . should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Several contributions from relatively new accounts have either mischaracterized or outright disregarded sources, and the tone from this section's original author is quite one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Udnciemd93749 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Regards, Udnciemd93749

---

Hi User:Udnciemd93749

Welcome to Wikipadia!

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts! For clarity's sake, are you the same user behind the "Jaipurgal" account? I ask because I addressed that account in my last post and am unclear on whether this is a response.

I suspect you are right about the various edits to this page being made by persons with strong opinions on the issue, as indicated by the tone of the additions as well as the repeated attempts to delete content and the even the entire article. I'm always in favor of assuming good faith in editing, however, and absent more evidence of personal involvement nor additional won't personally be pursuing that issue.

That said, after reviewing the sources, I disagree with your contention. First, Eghbariah was not the author of any of the sources; the Nation piece did publish his writing, but it was preceded by text written by the staff of the nation itself providing context for their republication. The Nation, The Intercept, and The Guardian are all sources that are commonly used on Wikipedia as high-quality sources, especially when they confirm each other, to describe news events. While the Common Good and Arab News sources are somewhat less reputable they stood merely for the statement that the issue was controversial, a fact also supported for another source. The fact that a source interviews a party to a controversy is no surprise, indeed it is to be expected in any journalistic piece; alone, it does not indicate poor quality – quite the contrary.

The information in this section does seem relevant to the article subject's notability: namely her role as the head of the student organization involved. I note that I just took a look at the Harvard Law Review page on account of your edits there and see that her personal involvement in this controversy is noted. As such, I believe this section ought to be restored promptly.

I will not be doing so immediately in deference to the extra caution suggested by the "biographies of living persons" policy and your reasoned post on this talk page. I plan to do so in short order, however, barring your continued reasoned disagreement with my explanation above.

Warmly, Arcendeight (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello Arcendeight,

I am not "Jaipurgal," and apologies if I implied otherwise by replying directly in this thread!

Regarding reputability of sources, the articles from The Guardian, Common Good, and Arab News seem to wholly derive from reporting in The Nation and The Intercept. So I think it's fair to say that the credibility of this section hinges on the articles from latter two websites. It's unclear where The Nation gets its information for the preface to Eghbariah's piece, but I'd presume that a fair amount of it came from the author himself (they likely communicated with him in publishing his piece, after all). And The Intercept more clearly provides the basis for its claims: Eghbariah and the two online chairs who had solicited his work. I understand that sources like The Nation and The Intercept might be reliable in other contexts, but I don't think the particular articles here rise to the level of reliability such as to support claims adversely affecting this individual's reputation. Udnciemd93749 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to spam your inbox, but I'll note one other thing: while both The Intercept and The Nation are listed as reliable sources, the former is considered "biased" by "[a]lmost all editors" and accordingly may need to be attributed. Further, the latter is considered "partisan" by "[m]ost editors" and should be attributed. In particular, editors should "[t]ake care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy." Udnciemd93749 (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Udnciemd93749

No worries at all and thanks for clearing that up!

I appreciate your point about the potential bias of these sources in some context. Regardless, I don't see the issue that poses unless you believe that the sources are being biased against the article's subject in this case. I fail to see how this section is in any way content that could adversely affect Iyer.

The fact that the article was commissioned is in no way slanderous nor in serious doubt, nor is the sentence about the article's content, seeing as the entire article has been published by The Nation (its editorial slant is irrelevant to the content of an article it publishes from an unaffiliated author). It would be difficult to argue that the result of the vote on the article's publication will be attributed to one voter as opposed to the entire body. Your inclusion of the "due weight" policy here is not relevant, as it pertains to the weight given to minority and majority voices in discourse and I do not believe any source, including the statement on the subject by the Law Review itself, has taken a differing position.

As such, the only material here that could potentially impact the article's subject negatively is Iyer's decison to stop or delay (depending on the version of the article) publication pending the vote. This is a matter of fact and not a question of the Intercept or the Nation's editorial slants.

Should you have reason to doubt the factual integrity of those accounts, that would be another matter.

@Bbb23's decision to revert your edits, given their experience as an editor and administrator, further convinces me that the prior version of this article is appropriate.

As before, I will refrain from conducting another reversion immediately because I strongly oppose the back-and-forth that this has already produced. That said, I remain unconvinced that your changes are appropriate.

Warmly,

Arcendeight (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)