Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian sex tape scandal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. enough consensus JForget 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian sex tape scandal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:LIBEL: This article is libelous; it accuses a living person of a serious social misconduct/crime based on speculations of the media while no legal authority has even charged the said person of that said crime. Wikipedia is not publisher of libelous speculations. Fleet Command (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep- with a possible re-write. I'm basing this mostly on the effect that it had on the society, up to and including the legislation in reaction to it. That seems to me to be an indicator of lasting notability. That said, if there is anything in there that is libelous, it should be immediately edited out. But as long as its sourced in reliable sources, I don't know if I see a problem. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I can't possibly get your idea of a possible rewrite – perhaps you can kindly explain a bit details – but three thing is certain: (1) This article accuses someone who is not even charged! That's surely libel. Everyone is not guilty unless proven otherwise. (2) When it comes to scandals, media is not considered WP:RS: We all know that media has a reputation for sailing near the winding and bending the laws as much they could if it means money. Media would do it to us too, if a financially successful opportunity show itself. (3) WP:LIBEL says defamatory contents must be erased from Wikipedia and it does not make well-sourced libel an exception. Fleet Command (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Full disclosure, I am the creator of the article.) I'm not sure what article you read, but it clearly does not accuse anyone of anything, certainly not libelously, and it clearly states that Ebrahimi has said that the girl in the tape is not her. The article does not even remotely take an editorial stance about whether or not it is her, and is appropriately sourced for such a delicate subject. The point here is that the Iranian government seemed, for a while, to be pretty sure it was her, and dispatched the equivalent of the country's attorney general to find out, which could have led to some extremely unpleasant consequences. This is a little like the U.S. sending Eric Holder to investigate the circumstances of the Pamela Anderson sex tapes.
It was a pretty major Iranian (and to a perhaps greater extent) British international news event that year, and I think the sources bear this out. In American papers it wasn't covered so closely, but it was for writers on both sides of the Atlantic a touchstone for the differences between popular culture under eastern and western regimes. Sex tape: make one in America and become famous (Paris Hilton), make one in Iran and suffer corporal punishment up to but not including the death penalty (although it was erroneously reported that she was liable to be stoned if it ever went to a trial). (If I could read Farsi, I'd tell you what their version of the article says (fa:رسوایی انتشار فیلم‌های جنسی در ایران.) It was not a minor thing. I was actually banned by Wikipedia's counsel and then reinstated by Jimbo Wales over this article because apparently the foundation received communication from people worried that media attention to the case was a direct threat to Ebrahimi's life. The article is factual, not prurient. It is not tabloid gossip.
News media is not WP:RS for accusations, that is absolutely correct. But nowhere does it state anything other than that Ebrahimi was at the heart of this scandal, whether it was her or not, and that is not equivocal, it is verifiable fact. Ford MF (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: You uttered the condemning word: Seem. Verifiable or not, factually accurate or not, when it comes to accusations against a living person, writing things that seem so and so – regardless of how factually accurate they seem so and so – is an atrocity known as libel. Hence, either the article should go, or the name of Ebrahimi from the article.
Besides, let's not make things political by mentioning differences in laws between two political regions in a manner that is analogous to comparison of good and evil. That's politician's field of work, not Wikipedia. Indeed, we needn't have heard anything about puritans and their methods, or had studied The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne: All of us know that events similar to what occurred in Disclosure (by Michael Crichton) actually do happen in the same country that Paris Hilton lives and all have the same potential for devastation. If Wikipedia covers such things with excuses such as verifiability or factual accuracy, it had only fanned the fire and augmented the magnitude of harm.
Let's delete this article and make sure no one else accuses any other living person in Wikipedia, no matter in what political region that living person reside.
Fleet Command (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when a person's involvement in scandal--and whether or not it was Ebrahimi, she was factually, indisputably, inextricably involved--leads to the passage of a law mandating capital punishment by the national legislative body of a country, that is noteworthy, newsworthy, and encyclopedic. 64.115.160.242 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is talking about a person who seems involved; there is no concrete evidence. Legal authorities hasn't even announced suspect, let alone a verdict! Therefore, this article is committing defamation. Fleet Command (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't seem involved. When the attorney general of your nation interrogates you regarding your involvement, you are involved. Ford MF (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I've added some more recent articles. Ever since the scandal broke--four years ago--Ebrahimi has been banned from appearing in films or on television in Iran. As recently as February 2010, Iran's minister of culture reviewed some films she appeared in--that are prohibited from being released because of that--and declared that they could only be released if the scenes in which she appeared were re-shot with a different actress. Ford MF (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Checked you new addition. That's why media should be prevented from writing libelous things like this: Innocent people getting banned from their jobs subsequent to an unfounded allegation of an unscrupulous reporter. Anyway, that addition of yours explicitly states that she's now unbanned. Let's terminated this libelous article and start an end to this chain of libel-mongering. Fleet Command (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with the suggestion that the media was threatening Ebrahimi's life and well-being by publicizing her case, this is false. The media did not interrogate her because of a private sexual encounter she may or may not have had, and the media did not ban her from appearing in films. The policies of the government of Iran did that, and bear the full responsibility here. If anything the media bears a double-responsibility to report on the case, as Iran is so clearly attempting to make it, and Ebrahimi, disappear from public life. Ford MF (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Did you even read my response correctly? Fleet Command (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also at this point I can only assume you are arguing about what you believe this article to be, rather than what it actually states. Nowhere does it say that Ebrahimi has been unbanned. She is still persona non grata with the gov't of Iran, prohibited from working in the film industry, and films in which she appears may not be released at all unless she is edited out of the film. Please actually read the article before commenting. Ford MF (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The article title from which you cited reads: “Regime decides to un-ban 13 films it had forbidden”. So, I assumed it is talking about a person who is unbanned. Strange...
- I'm a little taken aback that you think reading article titles is the same thing as reading articles, but if you actually look at that reference it's about the Iranian ministry of culture reviewing a bunch of banned movies, unbanning a bunch, and reaffirming the ban on films featuring Zahra Amir Ebrahimi. Again, you appear to be arguing just to argue, not about anything that is actually contained in the text we are discussing. Ford MF (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be taken aback. I did read the whole article. It explained the whole conduct at lenght! That was what made me assume think she is unbanned. It is a foolish thing to do to write an article with such a title and then talk about a still-banned person at such length!

Fleet Command (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - You are simply being disingenuous or not telling the truth. Reading that article, it is not even remotely ambiguous that Ebrahimi continues to be banned from appearing in films or on television. The entire second half of the article is about how the Iranian government will not permit the release of any film featuring that actress. You are clearly not reading any of this, unless someone tries to call you out on not actually looking at the text. Ford MF (talk) 17:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now, now! You are being impertinent. Pace yourself, dear sir. It is natural to defend to your own contribution – that I understand. But please do not start accusing others. I gave you my reason: If the article title is talking about unbanning and then almost half of the article length is talking about a certain banned person, it is only logical to assume that the person in question is now unbanned. Now, our discussion here is being watched by a whole world. Please remain civil and mind the words you use. Taking a short break before answering really helps. Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, let's not get diverted from the main discussion: The subject of this AfD is accusing a living person of a crime/misconduct while no legal authority has even charged that living person, let alone having issued a verdict. Sources of this article, as you confessed, fail as reliable source due to their reputation for publishing questionable material. Hence, this article must be deleted per WP:LIBEL. Do you have any reason for not deleting this article? Fleet Command (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Iranian ministry of culture under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has explicitly affirmed a ban on the actress' works. I don't understand how this does not qualify as action taken against her by the legal authority of the state of Iran. Also I have nowhere confessed that the sources used are not WP:RS. I am trying to assume good faith, but at this point, seeing as how you are not even carefully reading this discussion, I'm not sure what ground can be gained arguing with you. Ford MF (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - People acted on by state power without legitimate state charges filed are perfectly notable and un-prurient for the purposes of WP:BLP, see also the number of people on the list of Guantanamo Bay detainees, not one of whom has been charged with any crime. Blindly using "charges filed" as the only yardstick prohibits us from talking about extrajudicial punishment by states in any way. Ford MF (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the Iranian ministry of culture also commited the crime of defamation. We in Wikipedia should not copy him. As for the notability, it is not the only criteria for inclusion: Libelous material do not merit inclusion; notable or not. If you want to talk about extrajudicial punishment, do it in a neutral manner not in a defamatory manner. Fleet Command (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So it is libelous for us to state the Guantanamo detainees have been detained for suspicion of terrorist activities, when they are just that, suspicions? It is libelous for us to state that Felix Anthony or Asma Jahangir were imprisoned? Because they were refused due process? In what way is that more fair to the subject? Ford MF (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Please do not play with words and stay on topic: It is libelous to spread words of unbiased accusation of someone in a manner that defames that person. That's what this article is doing. I'm sure you wouldn't like to be in that actress's shoes and burden being the object of such an article on the pretext that "such an event is notable". Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - And your repeated assertion that the article is based on "speculation" is simply and plainly untrue. No one is speculating that one of the participants was sent to prison and the other was banned (apparently for life) from working in their chosen field. Or that the legislative body of a national government responded to the event. That is reported fact. Ford MF (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am repeatedly asserting that this article is libelous because it is giving a living person an undeservedly bad face, regardless of her nationality. It is libel and libel is not allowed in Wikipedia. I think I and you have said all we have had to say on this matter. I will say no more. Fleet Command (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alleged...denies that she was the woman in the tape...rumored to have attempted suicide because of all the negative media attention. We are some borg like-entity relentlessly compiling everything ever said about any notable person ever, and who does not care about anybody who is hurt by this. Delete this please. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite a little. The core of this article should be about the incontrovertibly notable event: the passing of an unprecedented law in the aftermath of a shady sex scandal. Some of the speculation surrounding the scandal may need to be removed, but I don't think deleting the entire article is a productive proposition. There's no other article on wiki about these matters, as far as I can tell. Pcap ping 20:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said! But can you do that? This degree of neutrality can only be accomplished by an experienced Wikipedian; one that is level-headed and can write so that only facts are read without giving a bad face to a living person. Can you do it? Fleet Command (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about the most notorious such scandal ever in Iran. Would we consider for a moment deleting an article on the most notorious sex scandal ever in a smaller country such as France, Italy or the United Kingdom? Of course not. Editors claiming that the article is libellous clearly haven't read it, or haven't understood it, because it nowhere says that the actress in question was the person filmed. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection Direct accusation is not required for defamation. To defame a person, all you need to do is make that person the sole target of a notoriety that previously had no target of blame. Just mentioning that "it is rumored", or citing real rumors, is defamation. This method of defamation is so famous that you can even find it in literature. For instance, you can see it in Rising Sun by Michael Crichton, The Body in the Library by Agatha Christie or in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by J.K.Rowling. In fact, if you visit the article Defamation and read the definition of libel, you'll see that I'm not making this up.
  No, my dear sir, there is no doubt that this article is defamatory and libelous.
  Fleet Command (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 21:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep but not with the focus on the actress and the tape. The article's title and focus should be on the law and with background on the scandal. --Sodabottle (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.