Talk:A Gay Girl in Damascus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Her existence

Is there any evidence of her existence? 90.187.53.86 (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a certain amount of scepticism about her story. No one has yet been found who knows her in real life, and apparently the pictures of her distributed on the Internet are of another person. See here:[1], [2]. Not sure whether to add this to the article yet. Robofish (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Added it, with links to a blog at The Guardian website and to today's discussion on the BBC World Service. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I am changing the category to "possibly living people" in accordance with the advice given in the description of that category. The description in Category:Possibly living people, quoting an out of date version of that advice, limits the category to people over 90. Thincat (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Tom MacMaster has just confessed here [3] to inventing her.

Clodia Metelli (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed until cited

Professional activity Amina Arraf is a teacher and a writer, she collaborated with the Ad Astra Games company and is credited as "Scenario assistant" in at least two publications:

  • The PostHuman Diaspora. An Optimistic Future by Scott Palter [citation needed]

and

"Amina Arraf" was posting on a Yahoo group, "alternative-history", as long ago as mid-2006, and apparently "she" connected with Scott Palter there - see recent posts. So these credits are most likely true - the persona is several years old. Mporter (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
a recent article from the WaPo, truth is clearing its way up http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-gay-girl-in-damascus-comes-clean/2011/06/12/AGkyH0RH_story.html?hpid=z1 there is also an article on the italian press which connects "Amina" with a Gaming company http://www3.lastampa.it/esteri/sezioni/articolo/lstp/406744/ Cunibertus (talk) 06:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
"Amina Arraf" apologizes to Mr Scott Palter http://damascusgaygirl.blogspot.com/2011/06/apology-to-readers_13.html "I want to apologize clearly and explicitly and personally to Jelena Lecic, Paula Brooks, Sandra Bagaria and Scott Palter."Cunibertus (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Train wreck

How does the project usually deal with these types of hoaxes? Anyways, lots of work/rewrite going forward I would imagine. --Threeafterthree (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Internet hoaxes provides some articles that this one could be modelled after, like Kaycee Nicole, Edward Owens and John Titor. Also, I wonder if a link to Münchausen by Internet would be appropriate here? (Probably not unless there's a reliable source describing it as such, but there are similarities.) Robofish (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This reminds me of the JT Leroy literary hoax also.Totorotroll (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it needs rewriting from the beginning. The article has been written as if it is about a woman living in Syria, and so has contained details about her, some sourced only from the blog. Then comes the revelation that the blog is a hoax. My feeling is that "her" description of a protest being suppressed is a lot less notable as something made up in Edinburgh, than it would have been as an eye-witness account. I am conscious of disgust at the hoax, which makes light of something so serious possibly with the intent of fraudulent gain, and seeking to maintain NPOV.Abigailgem (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to reduce the blog details for a few reasons. One, although a hoax, the blog was still equally noteworthy for the real attention it received. Two, although a hoax, the hoax doesn't make much sense without the character involved. Third, we've rephrased the narrative to clearly indicate which parts were fictional and who was the indicated and actual author. Four, we shouldn't overreact and be biased 'against' the blog either. Although it was a hoax it still brought attention to real issues going on in Syria and received attention for doing so. The character created was compelling and politically on point, however fictional, and readers would benefit from a summary of the blog's key events and perspectives. In sum, I think the amount of material we have is still appropriate. In my opinion we should focus attention on continuing to make clear which aspects of the story were fictional versus real and continue to report on the response to the hoax and the questions it raised in the media/political world about the role of blogs, individuals in political activism, and social media. Ocaasi t | c 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Abigailgem that this article needs heavily rewriting. As someone who just read the article for the first time, it seems to me that large sections of it are very much written in in-universe style. JRheic (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it's hilarious that an Internet troll persona not only 1) has an article in Wikipedia but also 2) has a bigger, more detailed article than people who, ya know, actually exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Identity of authors vs Identity of author

In an interview with the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/13/gay-girl-damascus-tom-macmaster Tom MacMaster states that he is the sole author of the blog and that his wife's role was that of consultant. In the light of this, I suggest that the Identity of authors section be reduced to Tom MacMaster's identity Totorotroll (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As an attempt at addressing this, I added language using totorotroll's link to specifically explain the extent of MacMaster's wife's role (according to MacMaster anyway). I think it makes sense to at least mention her because she does seem to have been involved. Awk (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew the couple in person at the time. I do believe Britta Froelicher when she says she had absolutely nothing to do with this. It's not her style, especially the weird business with posing as a lesbian, and she has far more common sense. It wouldn't be difficult for Tom to have picked up information from her simply due to her chatting about her research at home. I realise that I have no way of verifying my identity or how I knew them, but still, there doesn't seem to be any good reason to suspect Britta of active involvement. Plenty of people get up to all sorts of things behind their spouse's backs. Elettaria (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fictional biography

"emigrated to Virginia from Ulster in 1742" - 1942? Tiddy (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

No, 1742: remote ancestors who came over in the 18th century; part of the "deep American roots" part of the backstory.--Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Apparently MacMaster had a Wikipedia account: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/06/14/137148644/man-behind-syrian-blogger-hoax-something-innocent-got-out-of-hand "MacMaster said Amina was born out of a fascination with the Middle East. He said he's been so enthralled with Syria, for example, that he was banned from Wikipedia for making too many edits on the country." WhisperToMe (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

MacMaster must've been making disruptive or POV edits and warring quite a bit because no one gets banned simply for contributing. 67.189.12.255 (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah - I figured that it wasn't "banned for editing too much" - I want to know what his account name is WhisperToMe (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
According to Electronic Intifada http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/new-evidence-about-amina-gay-girl-damascus-hoax
"One of these IP addresses was the source of a number of edits to various articles on Wikipedia. These edits from 188.74.110.134 begin in October 2010. The edited pages all involve Middle East, Arab, Islamic and historical topics.
MacMaster posted Facebook updates between 4 September 2010 and 8 September 2010 documenting his move from Stone Mountain, Georgia to Edinburgh, UK, including 47 photographs added to a gallery named “First Days in Edinburgh” on 8 September.
Topics of Wikipedia articles edited from the Edinburgh IP address overlap with many topics and subject areas in which MacMaster and Froelicher have documented interests and experiences according to online records."
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ocaasi t | c 19:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise against the use of an op-ed by an ideologue like Goldberg as any kind of reliable source for this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV works for sourced criticism/response sections. Known ideologues who have a strong reputation and following are useful points of response, whether we like their opinions or think they're part of an agenda. One of several sources here. Ocaasi t | c 22:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the sections to make it more in line with articles about other works of fiction, as well as to better demonstrate the developing awareness of blog's fictional nature and the response to that revelation.

For now, I have not made any changes to the content of the article; just re-ordered it. This should make it more clear which parts of the article are "in-universe" and which are not.

However, since we are now aware that this is a work of fiction, I would suggest that the extensive quotes from the blog text be removed. They were relevant when they were assumed to be true; they are irrelevant now. (For example, "Amina's" description of a tear gas attack was noteworthy as eyewitness testimony; now it is merely a testament to McMaster's imagination.)132.162.164.169 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

And so I have done. Quotes removed and replaced with summaries (some of which already existed, and the quotes were just amplification); references left intact. Hope this helps.132.162.164.169 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know...

An IP removed a couple of paragraphs citing BLP concerns. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Our IP also removed this and this and this. The common thread seems to be not tainting the pro-palestinian message promoted by Amina/MacMaster. I think there's a bias evident in these removals and we need to keep an eye on them. IP 88.223, please do not remove information just because it expresses an opinion you dislike. If you remove information, post it on the talk page for others to review. Thanks, Ocaasi t | c 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The Hoax

Mention is made of the profiles that MacMaster set up for "Amina" on social networking websites; I think that the fact that he apparently made profiles on online dating websites should be mentioned as well. It would seem to be inconsistent with, and therefore cast doubt upon, his explanations/justifications for his actions. It also may explain how he wound up in a six-month relationship with Sandra Begaria. Blue5732 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)blue5732

"Fictional"

The use of "fictional" all over the place seems to be over-egging the pudding somewhat, we get that it's fictional --131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How would you prefer we refer to it? Ocaasi t | c 04:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I am the hoaxer

and i am removing things from article and comments page that are false and libellous about me. restore them if you prefer me taking legal action — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.105.159.200 (talk • contribs) restored by Ocaasi after manual overwrite of deleted talk page comments Ocaasi t | c 13:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, you need to read WP:COI WP:BLP and WP:LEGAL closely. If it's not true, you have to stop representing yourself as the subject of the article or your account will be blocked. Please remember that talk page discussions about the subject are appropriate so long as they are relevant, sourced, and not defamatory. Just making claims that they are is not sufficient, and raising legal implications puts us all in a position where we have to resolve the issue before any further action can be taken. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, the 85.105 ip geolocates to Istanbul, Turkey, which is where the news reported MacMaster was spending his vacation. So does 88.233.127.238. Thus, for better or worse, these claim passes the first smell test. That doesn't mean the removal of content is automatic, however, and we need to look closely at the content and the claims. Ocaasi t | c 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

88.233.127.238 has previously removed and changed content pertaining to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari&diff=434592015&oldid=434591897). I'm not a regular contributor, but I suggest that content is restored. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have restored text on reception, referring to Brian Whitaker's article in The Guardian, removed by that IP address. It shows anger, but I think it does not say anything libellous, as it is expressing opinion; and I think that it maintains NPOV as not giving undue weight to one kind of reaction. Abigailgem (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

no, it is libellous as whitaker, and many others (esp dan littauer's sockpuppets that have been all over the media), presume the ability to read my mind and infer things that i have never stated. hence, libel. a clean up is necessary to prevent a libel case. TOM MACMASTER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.175.230.155 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Legal issues need to be taken up with the Wikimedia Foundation. We cannot be under threat of legal action here. You need to stop editing, contact the foundation, and let them advise both you and us how to handle this. As an editor only, my opinion is that quoting other people's sourced commentary is common in an encyclopedia whether you like their opinions or not. As a public figure, having people comment about your motives and actions is fairly standard. I question whether there is even grounds for a claim of bias let alone libel when the quote is clearly cited and represented as someone else's opinion. Also, we can't verify this is Tom MacMaster, so you'll have to do that through the foundation as well. You can contact them through this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject).

If Tom MacMaster decides to file a libel case against Brian Whitaker and/or The Guardian and wins, the text should (in my opinion) be rewritten or deleted. I suggest Wikipedia until then leave the text as it is. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We need to hear from the Foundation on any legal issue. Until then, all editors need to abide by WP:BLP and WP:LEGAL. Note that BLP does not prohibit sourced criticism of public figures. Note that LEGAL prohibits legal threats of any kind and editors must cease editing until the issues are resolved through the foundation. Ocaasi t | c 13:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Obviously if he files a libel suit and a court finds in favor, the content will have to be removed, but for the reasons Ocaasi cites, I think a favorable verdict for MacMaster, if this is him and he seriously wants to extend his 15 minutes of fame, is unlikely enough that we should maintain the contents of the page despite attempts by dynamic IPs claiming to originate from MacMaster to remove or revert. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

PROJECTION

This type of hoax has a long pedigree on the left end of the political spectrum.

The idea of a gay woman in Damascus who's only real harassment, (until the vacation/kidnapping break), was in America perfectly fits the inverted, multi-cultural world view that disparages free societies and romanticizes oppressive, "other" socieities as superior. The largely fiction "I, Rigorberta Menchu" is another in a long list of examples. I think a section on the psychology of this type of fantasy projection, (and it's willing embrace by many seemingly intellegent people who should be able to immediately sense how widly improbable it is), would be a great addition to this article. Dave Bueche — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.83.101.23 (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and these talk pages are not fora for your ideologically-slanted speculations; please keep them for your blog or talk show or podcast. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
There are interesting points to be made here regarding 'liberal orientalism' or 'munchausen by internet' but we need sources to make them. Otherwise, Orange Mike is right that this talk page is primarily for improving the article and should remain focused on that. Cheers, ip 167. Ocaasi t | c 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

I'm sorry, but I simply do not believe that all reception to this story is negative. I'm not arguing for him but there simply has to be non-pov sources. 170.201.180.136 (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are sources saying that some people think this kind of fraudulent impersonation and cultural appropriation was a good thing, then by all means add them to the article. So far, I've seen nothing of the sort, and apparently neither has any other editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This one, since publication, added a note saying the Amina Arraf stuff is fake:

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Alterations to the blog

For a time, the "Gay Girl in Damascus" blog was unavailable. Now it is available again, but there have been alterations to it. For example, only the second of the two apologies is there now. There may be other alterations. I think Mr MacMaster may be altering the record to make himself appear in a less bad light. I think Wikipedia should have a link to the blog as it was originally, so that a correct record of the deception may be retained. I understand certain honest folk are holding such records. Abigailgem (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Crivvens! The bit about Amina having been abducted is gone too! That is, at this time log: it may come back, or something. Abigailgem (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
As more of the blog has been deleted, as of today, I am altering the main page to contain the link to the .pdf of the blog as it stood on 6 June, and amending the main page to show that the blog as it stands now is not the hoax that was perpetrated. Abigailgem (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

injury cited to questionable source

I removed the following:Sam Hamwi and Daniel Nassar, both referenced in the CNN article, later stated they were injured by MacMaster's deception per this source

Should this be reworded or even included per the citation. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Having added the source, I would say no, as it is self-published and refers to third parties. WP:BLOGS Abigailgem (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

More sources

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Minal Hajratwala stuff

In regards to the Minal Hajratwala content, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari.2C_Minal_Hajratwala WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP Violations

Article is thick with BLP violations. Arraf al Omari is fictional but real people are discussed and that needs to be treated with care. (Forex, I have removed the sections that MacMaster has publicly disputed as he is apparently a living person) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joatsimeon (talk • contribs) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What passages are BLP violations? Why? Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
You've apparently read the Gawker.com article. Note that the entire Hajratwala passage is based solely on her claim made on her blog. MacMaster disputes that account and implies retroactive rewriting on her part. My opinion is that everything based on their accounts either needs to be substantively rewritten, so as to include the fact that MacMaster has disputed her claims and has counter-claimed that she had earlier gushed about his writing, or entirely axed from the article. I don't think it lends anything substantive to the article, unless one sees this as important for promoting Hajratwala's career (which is, incidentally, why I am very curious as to WhisperToMe connections to Hajratwala).
Regarding BLP violations, this article as it now stands is rife with them. There are a lot of claims and speculations made about real people in it that have later been found either to be untrue or have remained as speculation. Considering that MacMaster (and Frolich, Hajratwala, etc.) are very much living people, it needs substantive cleaning up in my opinion or to simply have those passages removed. Joatsimeon (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The assertion that the entire NYT passage is solely based on the woman's blog is not true. It is also based on MacMaster's messages to The Lede, the NYT "blog" - MacMaster confirms many things, that he sent the materials to Minal, and that he is threatening legal action against her.
MacMaster only disputes some aspects (Minal said that she believed that it needed work when she got it, while MacMaster said she liked it at first) and he made an additional accusation against her supporters. The fact that MacMaster wanted a book deal is NOT disputed. MacMaster has admitted that he was looking for a book deal under the Amina character.
The importance of material is decided upon by reliable sources. The NYT reported on it, and MacMaster himself is threatening legal action.
While claims said about living people are sometimes later found to be untrue in disputes, but if allegations are printed in reliable sources and attributes to people (Alice says X, Bob says Y) then it's okay.
And you say the article is rife with BLP violations. Which passages? Why? WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would advise you quite seriously to step away from this article, as you appear to be on a personal vendetta against Mr. MacMaster and are allowing your hatred to cloud your ability to edit _honestly_. If you fail to see the gross BLP violations here, you are likely too close to the subject, whether or not you are actually Hajratwala or simply her partisan. Joatsimeon (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I find your claim that I am on a "a personal vendetta" and your claims that I have a personal connection to the author to be inappropriate.
When you claim BLP violations, you need to cite specific passages, and state ***why*** they are BLP violations. Saying "BLP violation" and not showing evidence is not kosher.
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Deep breaths, dude, deep breaths. It'll help you. Just did a clean up and added more balanced information that leaves your contributions but avoids some of the potential problematic claims. Joatsimeon (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see how a sentence such as "The Guardian, of course, had been one of the primary promoters of the blog" is adding "balanced information" to the article rather than merely trying to make the Guardian look bad for buying into MacMaster's lies. Not that I'm accusing you of deliberately trying to do so, Joatsimeon. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Adds a context to the post-revelation criticisms by the Guardian that is otherwise lacking. They repeatedly attacked MacMaster, far more than the rest of the MSM, as they appear to have perceived themselves as having 'lost face'. IMHO. Joatsimeon (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
But this is merely speculation by you, rather than actual facts.

And I just checked a few of your other additions. One is this sentence: "According to MacMaster, friends of Hajratwala made threats against his life at her urging." In the linked-to article, however, MacMaster merely writes that "Hajarwala's friends have tweeted calls for physical violence against me." MacMaster does *not* claim that Hajratwala has urged them to do so (in that particular article, at least). Another addition is this sentence: "MacMaster has since been cleared of all wrong-doing [by Edinburgh University]." I've searched the University of Edinburgh's website and can find no statement that they have cleared MacMaster. Neither does a quick Google search confirm MacMaster's clearance. Joatsimeon, could you please add a link to the article that told you he had been cleared? Also, to the sentence "Hajratwala posted the manuscript from MacMaster online so readers could look at it" you have added the following: "and to inject herself into the story". Since this casts Hajratwala in a negative light, I would like a link to the article where Hajratwala admits this. Thanks. 85.81.82.15 (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

JoatSimeon, WP:V clearly establishes that verifiability, not truth, is the criterion of inclusion. You can't say the university cleared MacMaster until a press release or news story says so.
I agree with the analysis by 85.81. Also your statements about the author are implying that MacMaster is saying the truth and that she is not. That gives the passages a pro-MacMaster POV. You have to say "MacMaster said X," "She said Y"
Also the author's commentary on the story is only BLP content in that it is related to Minal Hajratwala; her opinions on the work do not affect the BLP of MacMaster. Her statement about her telling MacMaster the stuff might affect MacMaster in a BLP way, but it is sourced to the NYT. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to have a stab of reworking the content. I'll comment on the specific revisions of Joatsimeon, then explain what I put up. I will use the first version of the Hajratwala (FYI, it's much easier to type "Minal" when using a mobile phone, but now that I'm on a desktop PC...) content written by me as a base, and then work in everything MacMaster said. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that the previous usage of gawker as a source went outside of WP:SPS, removing it left none of MacMaster's view on the sitation in the article, which is not ideal, WP:NPOV and all. I think per SPS it should be fine to include what he said about his own actions to gawker, ie that he wrote a letter of apology to Hajratwala, so I added that. I also added that Hajratwala put the full book up for download, and his objections to this, sourced to NY Times. Siawase (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I was having trouble trying to represent MacMaster's POV without going over SPS, so I am glad you added in the bit about MacMaster's POV.. - I did place info on Hijratwala posting the manuscript in the "reactions" part, since I had split the material with pre-discovery and post-discovery in two sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I missed that. I moved the apology down for chronology with the rest, and removed the redundant parts about the manuscript posting. Siawase (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your help :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese source

Would somebody who knows Portuguese mind taking a look at:

Also:

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

      • I knew the couple in person at the time, and I can confirm that before the scandal broke, Britta Froelicher had already organised the leave of absence from the university, for personal reasons unconnected with her husband's blog (which she was unaware of). Elettaria (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandals

Is there a way of reporting vandals to Wikipedia administrators? In this case, I'm thinking of 24.146.224.106, whose contributions to the article on "Amina" boil down to inserting words such as "fraudster" and "middle-aged" while pointing out that MacMaster is white (whatever that has to do with anything). He/she has made similar "contributions" to other Wikipedia articles. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.146.224.106 .) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.82.15 (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a way of reporting vandalism, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. See also Wikipedia:Vandalism. I am not sure it is necessary here. As a relatively inexperienced editor, looking at this page and finding my ability to "assume good faith" stretched a bit, I have been greatly reassured that the ordinary workings of Wikipedia keep the article valid, without the need for my protection request to be granted, and with additions like you describe being removed, IMHO correctly. Abigailgem (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've looked into the contribution history of the ip editor. The majority of their edits appear constructive. Adding 'fraudster' is a bit rich for this article, but 'middle-aged' and 'white' are actually relevant considering the real life persona MacMaster purported to be. Indeed, part of the sensational nature of this hoax was the stark contrast between an Arabic-speaking, middle-eastern, Syrian lesbian and a white, middle-class, anglo-saxon, heterosexual. Edits that are seen as unconstructive but not blatantly or intentionally so are not considered WP:Vandalism. We just revert them and discuss if necessary. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page 85.81. Ocaasi t | c 11:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Minal Hajratwala

Hi; I removed the section as the quoted author did not (in my opinion!) quite understand the highlighted term 'narcissistic' nor, as the comments are apparently disputed, did it seem particularly noteworthy beyond an effort to be nasty regarding the whole issue while having no factual information. LothianLiz (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is the text removed: Minal Hajratwala, upon discovering the real identity of Tom MacMaster, re-examined the fictional biography draft he sent her with more scrutiny. Robert Mackey of The New York Times said that Hajratwala's second assessment of the writing was "scathing". Hajratwala said "The faked lesbian sex scenes turn my stomach. The narcissistic writing, the sprinkling of quotations from the Koran and tidbits from Syrian history, the stock stories compiled from a thousand news clippings — it all seems painfully obvious." Hajratwala posted the manuscript from MacMaster online so readers could look at it. MacMaster asked Hajratwala to take the manuscript down and threatened legal action. Hajratwala refused to remove the writings, posted the e-mails MacMaster sent her, and asked readers to copy and disseminate the Amina story draft.[1] MacMaster later said he had apologized to Hajratwala "for any hurt feelings" in a letter.[2]

I think this is clearly as notable as any other aspect of the affair. It is reported in the New York Times. MacMaster himself thought Hajratwala important, as he sought her help for publication. I see no problem with her use of the word "narcissistic". My main point is that she is a lesbian of colour, the position that the liberal orientalist MacMaster wrongfully appropriated in order to be heard in lesbian circles. I think it important that her reaction be heard here. She is also an author who is sufficiently notable to have an article in Wikipedia. I also think that consensus should be held to support this, as other editors have added the passage, and only one has sought to remove it. I would be interested in comments from other editors. However I have again reverted to restore the text. Abigailgem (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"lesbian of colour"? What does that mean? From my understanding, the Amina character, like many (most?) Syrians self-identified as "white" and was depicted as being of half Scots descent. I think you may be superimposing your own racial categories on MacMaster and his creation rather than anything internal to the subject!

Further, 'narcissistic' is related to self-regard and self-obsession; clearly, this piece was not that. Hajratwala misuses the term so highlighting it is daft. Finally, MacMaster claims Hajratwala contacted 'Amina', not the other way around which raises verifiability questions. Sorry, I am re-removing as the entire section is a massive fail. LothianLiz (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Undid my own reversion; I suspect I may have been acting rashly and will leave it until there is some level of consensus. LothianLiz (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for restoring the text. I think it would need the support of more than one editor to justify removing it. I am interested to hear that the Amina character self-identified as white, where in his writings did you find that? I think the important thing about the section is that it illustrates how grotesquely offensive lesbians found the hoax. As a marginalised group, theirs is a voice which needs heard, and it is good that they should have such a notable spokesperson. Abigailgem (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious this "LothianLiz" user is either MacMaster with yet another fake persona, or (much less likely) a meatpuppet doing his bidding. MacMaster has been editing this article to remove criticism before and this LothianLiz just happens to be from the same location as him? Unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.100.19.137 (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But why would he pretend to be a woman, yet again? If he is transsexual in denial, I sympathise with him, but he should look around. Transsexual people are safe and accepted in British society, if they just have the courage to see it.Abigailgem (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
This is rather amusing; I suppose I am also Alex Salmond as I have posted on that and he's Scots? More seriously, I would venture that Macmaster is unlikely to be in Edinburgh or the UK any longer (I attempted to ascertain if he were still here but can find nothing regarding his current whereabouts; presumably he was either expelled from the University or has finished his degree, either of which would lead to the conclusion that he is long gone).
As for me, I am in Edinburgh, Scots and biologically female. I am not sure how I can prove I am not Macmaster or Salmond or anyone other than myself.
More seriously, on the white identification issue, that would be the conclusion from here:
The character of Amina Abdallah Arraf is a dual Syrian and American citizen, with an American mother and Syrian father.[16] The Lede Blog (of The New York Times) noted that Amina's draft of her biography indicated "very deep" American roots.[17] She wrote that she was born in Staunton, Virginia, in October 1975 to Abdallah Ismail Arraf and Caroline McClure Arraf. The McClures had emigrated to Virginia from Ulster in 1742. Four decades later, Ms. Arraf added, her mother’s family fought in the American Revolution at Yorktown, “earning me the right to be in the DAR [A Daughter of the American Revolution].”[17]
The last bit, if one goes to the [Daughters of the American Revolution] entry, would mean that the person claiming is unlikely to be seen as anything but white. LothianLiz (talk) 11:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Um. If you are accusing the Daughters of the American Revolution of racism, it is clear that they refused non-white members in the 1980s, but there is no evidence that they did after then in the article, and as a Scot I would not presume to comment on how they are now. I see that on 26 August you removed the link to Minal Hajratwala’s upload of the blog. As MacMaster removed his blog, including the mendacious “apologies”, the upload is necessary to see the foul lies told for personal gain, as well as the manipulative narcissism, and the very poor quality of the writing. For such a far-reaching revision, I do not think the note in the history, “clean up”, gives an adequate picture of the revision done. I would prefer that you were clearer when making such a deletion, and am glad that the link has been restored. My message to MacMaster (I am sure s/he is still looking in here) is that the blog does in certain respects resemble the blogs of male to female transsexual people, and if s/he may be transsexual she should reach out to transsexual organisations like GIRES or The Gender Trust. As a transsexual person I can assure her that there is a great deal of acceptance of us in the UK. I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet, but I do observe that a sock puppet of MacMaster might comment on neutral articles, such as that on Wee Eck, to try to establish an identity. Clearly this is not evidence that you are a sock puppet, but it is not decisive evidence that you are not. From the case of the false, and wrongfully claimed identity of joatsimeon, it appears that MacMaster seeks to edit this article; however if he is still here he should see that it is sufficiently watched so that he cannot damage it. The public record of his wicked acts will remain. I hope, Liz, you do not find this comment insulting. I do not intend to insult you, but I do intend to show my contempt for the hoax. I also note that this passage is the one which seemed most to irritate user "Joatsimeon", who was more than likely MacMaster. Abigailgem (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
A further thought. If MacMaster ever does succeed in vandalising this page, it will be a sign that his fifteen minutes of notoriety have finally ended. The hoax is not that important, in the great scheme of things. Abigailgem (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Title of article

I'm not certain, but it strikes me that the article should be listed under Macmaster (the actual living person) rather than under Abdallah (the character). Thoughts? LothianLiz (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The character was much more famous than the hoaxster; I'd say leave it here, with a redirect at Macmaster's name, since he has no fame of his own. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?

As Abigailgem has pointed out, no one but MacMaster really wants to see him get credit. I'd like to propose this article be deleted.LothianLiz (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why? The subject was clearly notable, and the issues which the whole incident raised have certainly not gone away. What is your rationale? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I feel sorry for Tom MacMaster, actually, and I think Liz does too. Possibly he did not foresee the reaction to his announcement of his creation’s arrest, and possibly he did not deserve the huge outpouring of disgust and contempt which followed. But the affair received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and notability is not temporary. It is clearly notable enough for one article among three million. Abigailgem (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, though mixed with a fair amount of personal irritation (as one of his dupes). My take on deleting the article is to remove any possible 'glory' from him but was largely pushed by realising that, while Amina/MacMaster is given a place in wikipedia, real activists with real stories that are quite similar, such as Razan Ghazzawi -- http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2011/12/syria-us-blogger-razan-ghazzawi-charged.html -- have not merited such attention.
I would like to see this article much, much shorter though I fear that if I attempt to trim it, I will again be accused of vandalism (or as being a sockpuppet!). LothianLiz (talk) 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The case of the blogger that you cite is indeed shocking, and she may have less support and publicity now because of MacMaster's wrongdoing. But I am unclear what parts of this article you think reflect well on MacMaster. You attempted to delete a paragraph about how a published writer considered him a poor writer. The article we have covers the sources.
If you want to reduce the glory for MacMaster, I suggest amending the paragraph "creation and spread" to delete the word "witty" as applied to the blog, and the quote from the Guardian calling it "brutally honest". You could also trim the paragraph headed "fictional biography": but I think removing the words about her having an informed perspective, which obviously he did not, would be better than, say, removing the account of how he claimed her character was in hiding, because that is how he falsely created sympathy for his character. Abigailgem (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I have now made a number of edits, which I think remove undue glorification of MacMaster, and improve the article's NPOV. I hope, Liz, that they meet with your approval. Abigailgem (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Article on Razan Ghazzawi

I am grateful to LothianLiz for the suggestion, and have started an article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Razan Ghazzawi. It is currently submitted for review as an article for creation, and I would be grateful for any assistance with it. I have collected sources from a brief search, but am not sure what level of detail is appropriate. Abigailgem (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

I have received some criticism that articles I recently wrote were too closely paraphrased from reliable sources. I am tagging the page so others can review the text and we can work on improving any instances of close paraphrasing. Ocaasi t | c 14:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the paraphrased part and from where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.155.38 (talk) 09:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the tag, and ask Ocaasi to revisit the article and determine which ones are closely paraphrased. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Hi everyone, I am doing some research on social media manipulation in the Syrian conflict with this case as the main example. I'd like to get in touch with Mr. Mcmaster but cannot find his details. Could someone please tell me how to get in touch with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.29.242 (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mackey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Max, Read. "While Posing as a Syrian Lesbian, Male Blogger Tried to Get a Book Deal", Gawker, June 22, 2911. Retrieved on July 6, 2011.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Gay_Girl_in_Damascus/Archive_1&oldid=1185797429"