Talk:Hamid Ashraf

Untitled[edit]

Not clear about "close connection"! There are few references about the subject and almost all in Persian; they include a books released based on the documents discovered in Shah's security police bases after the fall of Shah as well as anecdotal records such as those given in the source "International institute for oral history", as mentioned in the article . Also, this contributor has no particular connection to the subject in any way. The content's neutrality seems very reasonable perhaps naming someone like the subject "charismatic" has raised the issue?! That is a common term for such historical personalities, when it applies. Any clarifications about what part is biased or ... suggests "close connection'? 04:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

Hi, it was I who raised the "close connection" possibility. The thing that triggered it in my head was that the photograph has been uploaded as being your own copyright & therefore you most probably must have met the man, which might not have been easy for a stranger given that he was a fugitive. At the time, it was quite a biassed article also; it is slightly less so since my edits for "charismatic" etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the clarification. The picture is actually in Public Domain available in the internet but since I have not edited for a while looks like I was not able to do it right (if you could change it to have the sign for Public Domain in there, please do so). As for the comments including his "myth" and "charismatic", "his legend", etc., they are in fact the exact terms used by the author of a book (perhaps the most comprehensive one, although controversial by nature) that was recently published by PSRI, a historical research center affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the documents discovered at the SAVAK headquarters. Even a non-sympathetic author used those terms to describe him based on evidence therefore, that would give a reasonably accurate picture of Ashraf (something like Che Guevara and using these terms about him i.e., that would be an acceptable description and not exaggeration). I will try to edit the article further in the near future and add the reference to that book and the site for the PSRI (http://www.ir-psri.com/Show.php?Page=ViewPublishedBook&PublishedBookID=82&SP=Farsi) however, they will be all in Persian. There are not too many references in English on the subject and that will make it impossible to introduce people like Hamid Ashraf -who is quite well known in Iran as a hero, at least to part of the culture- to the English speaking world; any idea? Also, please remove the warning signs given that the current version seems quite neutral to me. And the last but not the least, Hamid Ashraf's brother, Dr. Ahmad Ashraf is a professor of sociology at Columbia University and I have been hoping that he would personally take the initiative to add a great deal to this article! Best Gmotamedi 18:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

Ok, point by point:

what website did you get the photo from? With that info I can change the details. I notice from your talk page that you have had problems with this issue throughout your time as a named editor here.
the adjectives are unnececessary, regardless of who wrote them. If you want to quote that writer then fine, but beware of Wikipedia's copyright/plagiarism guidelines.
guidelines say that you can use non-English language sources where there is no alternative but, as a rule, they are to be deprecated. If you do then you should provide an English translation - it's detailed under WP:RS, I think. To be honest, if there is nothing in English then that would suggest to me that he may not even be notable in Wikipedia-speak (WP:Notability).
the idea of his brother editing this article is not a great one as he would definitely have a conflict of interest.

Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this [1] the same person? Is the author reliable? - Sitush (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; the answers: 1) the link where the original picture can be downloaded is (http://shw.persian.fotopages.com/19104689/Hamid-Ashraf.html). 2) Thanks for the link you provided, yes, the book by Abbas Milani of Stanford University, Eminent Persians is referring to Hamid Ashraf and I believe is one of the reliable sources in English (was planning on buying it, was not aware it was available online); then this would be a good reference. I also noticed that little points in his book is less accurate than what I had added since those info came from the Persian language link that I added to the article; it's based on his close friend and comrade who later lead their organization, stated in a eries of oral history as audio links in Persian provided on that page. Overall, Milani's book is considered well researched and reliable. 3) given more and more English speakers who would like to know people like him (and I see the evidence) I think its important to have the article on Hamid Ashraf and I think we can edit this to the acceptable standards; the Persian references will remain a problem though, but for now Milani's book can be one. Thanks, Gmotamedi 08:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

the webpage does not mention the photo copyright status. I'd be wary of using it. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you are planning to use as a source the writings of someone who was close to the subject then I think you need to treat those writings as if there may be a conflict of interest. Certainly, do not use them unless absolutely necessary - which means probably not at all since we've now got an English source.
get editing :)
- Sitush (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the copy right, I know for sure that his picture were recovered from the Shah's regime's security head quarters; this particular picture belongs to the period when he was on the run therefore, I believe they are Public Domain by definition; who could claim those figures? Thanks Gmotamedi 05:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

If you believe that to be the case then you need to use the correct copyright notice - saying that it is your copyright, which is what you did, is not appropriate. I'd be surprised if it is public domain because I find it hard to believe either the Shah's regime or that which followed were particularly liberal in such matters. I'm not an genius with Commons but I do know that better tags exist than the one you have used, which is definitely incorrect. Perhaps someone else can advise you of the specifics. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just noticed that the note about "a contributire has close connection ....", is still on the page; this notion is fals as explained earlier (above). Please remote it. Tx Gmotamedi 04:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

I can do that, but I'm still waiting for the other necessary improvements noted above - especially the photo situation & the foreign language citation. This article is likely to be pruned unless something appears soon. Also, if his brother starts editing or the thing becomes too reliant on interviews with the close friend then the COI tag will likely reappear. - Sitush (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following what " ...too reliant on interviews with the close friend ..." is referring to. Also, as I can tell from the history of the page his brother has nothing to do with this article (otherwise, I assume he himself would have started this article a long time ago). As for the pciture though, I am clear about the "public zone", but have technical problem changing the logo, sorry about that one. Tx

Gmotamedi 21:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmotamedi (talk • contribs)

You refer to some of the sources being reliant on taped oral interviews (or something like that) with a close friend of the article subject. It would be no surprise if that close friend was promoting a certain perspective. As far as the photo goes, you have said that it is public domain - you have not so far proven this and I have indicated why I think it is at best dubious. As for his brother, you were the one who raised the point, not me. - Sitush (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]