Template:Did you know nominations/International Conference on Hollywoodism

The following is an archived discussion of International Conference on Hollywoodism's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

International Conference on Hollywoodism

(

)

... that attendees of the annual International Conference on Hollywoodism, held by the government of Iran in Tehran, include conspiracy theorists and a former U.S. senator and presidential candidate?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Carneddau

Created by Wasted Time R (talk). Self nominated at 22:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC).

Good article, good hook, seems to meet requirements. The only change I would make (and a tiny one) would be to link "conspiracy theorist" to one of the specific conspiracy theorists mentioned in the article. I'm putting a check mark on this one, if I'm not supposed to, admins are welcome to remove it. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Since this article is on a politically controversial subject, its neutrality and sourcing have to be impeccable. They are anything but. The article says that Hassan Abbasi is "known for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories", but the NYT article quoted in the article makes no such claim. Isabelle Coutant-Peyre is described as "an activist French lawyer known for representing terrorists", yet the sources do not mention this. I haven't checked any of the other claims in the article, but those two are bad enough.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I was replicating what those articles themselves say, but I get your point. I'll fix this up tonight. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've now added dedicated sources describing each of these people and adjusted the article text in some cases as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the sources of another two random claims in the article: "foreigners billed by the Iranian government as "film theorists" and "cultural experts".[2] In actuality, the foreign participants tend to be leftist activists, Hollywood detractors and other writers, religious figures and converts to Islam, filmmakers, and politicians." Neither of those two claims appear in the sources.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On the first one, I had a typo in the cite template ("ur" instead of "url") for footnote 2, which prevented the link from appearing. But the cite does support it: "“Film theorists and cultural experts have come together here to discuss the hegemony of Hollywood,” Shamaqdari said." My apologies for not catching the typo when I created the article. On the second one, this is merged list from three different sources. Footnote 3's source gives us "Last week, the Iranian government organized a conference on "Hollywoodism" in Tehran, at which an international group of activists, religious figures, filmmakers, and politicians discussed the ideology of Hollywood films." Footnote 4's source gives us "Leftist activists, Muslim converts and a former American senator were interviewed by a stream of Iranian state television camera crews ..." And then Footnote 1's source gives us "For the third year in a row, Talebzade has invited Iranian analysts, film critics and Hollywood detractors from the U.S. to slam ..." Everything in the list in the article is from one of these sources. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
On the first one: Shamaqdari is the head of that movie organization, not a government representative. On the second one: None of the sources say that majority of the Westerners were one of those things, just that some were present.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first, I've rewritten the Shamaqdari labeling to be more specific about his positions, one of which is deputy culture minister (I've given two cites to support this), which by any reckoning is a government representative. Regarding the second, the Iranians try to portray this as an academic-type conference, when in fact the foreign attendees do not fit that mold. That's what I'm trying to get across. I've listed every description that these mainstream sources (NYT, LAT, FP) gave of the attendees. With two more inclusions, I've now mentioned every attendee who is well known enough to have a WP article. If the majority of the foreign attendees were really the credentialed scholars of film and culture that normally go to Western academic conferences, you would think at least one of these sources would have stated that. But they haven't. I believe that the article's description of the foreign attendees accurately reflects both reality and the non-Iranian sources I have seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first issue: Then why not just attribute the claim to Shamaqdari directly? The Tehran Times article doesn't say that he made this statement as a government representative, but it sounds more like he was acting as a representative of the movie organization. As to the second question, the fact all of those newspaper articles don't list any actual film theorists could just be because they generally tend not to be as well-known as politicians and activists. Also, the PressTV article you used as a source claims that foreign scholars did attend the conference.

The difference between this film organization and the Iranian state is negligible, but I've changed it to "conference representatives". PressTV is owned by the Iranian state, but I've now called it just "Iranian press" and added "scholars" to that list. This is bending over backward, I hope you realize.

The claim "Organizers also fund the travel expenses of those coming from abroad" is not backed by the sources either. Mike Gravel in his interview merely says that his trip to Iran was paid for (actually he doesn't say this explicitly either), while the Los Angeles Times article just says that Art Olivier's trip was paid for.

I've changed it to "sometimes fund" (I'm including Gravel, since I can't imagine who else would have funded him).

Introducing Webster Tarpley as an "American conspiracy theorist" could certainly be construed as POV (though I wouldn't disagree with it myself). Something like "American author and historian" or even "9/11 Truth movement activist" would probably be more appropriate.

The NPR source says he is an "American conspiracy author", which is quite accurate - he has spent his whole life on conspiracy theories, including being part of the LaRouche movement, seeing assassination plots by the Masons, 9/11 conspiracies, etc. This is an accurate capsule description. The purpose of this article is to talk about the Iranian conference, not give the biographies of its attendees - that's what the blue links are for!

"failed to provide a unified critical theory" the New York Times article doesn't really say that.

I disagree - I think it was an accurate summary of what the article meant by "It would prove harder than expected." - but in the spirit of cooperation, I've removed it.

Merely calling James Fetzer "an American conspiracy theory generalist" is also a little iffy.--Carabinieri (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The source says that Fetzer thinks the JFK assassination, the Paul Wellstone death, and 9/11 were all conspiracies. The sources includes things like, "Sometimes, Thompson says, Fetzer would share theories that—even in the world of assassination buffs—seemed off the wall." In the PressTV source, Fetzer is advancing Zionist domination plots and Holocaust denial tropes. The characterization in the article is accurate, and again, like Tarpley, this article does not exist to give full capsule bios of the attendees or to promote their views. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been two weeks: a new reviewer is needed who can deal with the neutrality and sourcing issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

- I know at a first glance it doesn't look like everything has been addressed, but actually, the nom appears to be fully engaged in this process. Help! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see many of the peculiar claims in this article now have a source, but the most important of them all "with the purpose of criticizing the U.S. film industry and its attitudes towards Iran and Islam" still has no inline reference.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 20:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This was intended as a summary of the article body, but I've added an immediate cite for it and tweaked the wording a bit. If you have any doubts that this is a fair representation you can read the main screen of the conference website yourself. I've also included a straight quote from the first paragraph of the conference website to the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh I believed you, alright. It was just that that particular claim (apart from the opinion of one individual attendee) wasn't found anywhere else in the article. But now that you've accurately sourced that statement, this article is fine in my book. Need a fresh reviewer to state that, though.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article still contains a few statements that look to be a bit of a concern. I will take a closer look at this tomorrow to ensure that it conforms with the sources. Gatoclass (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I'm sure the nominator would love to work with your criticism, but it's kind of... vague as it stands. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 06:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous reviewer has not been heard back from. We need a new, full and fresh review. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am still reviewing this, I have just been busy over the last few days. I'm currently working my way through the sources to ensure the article conforms with them - there are, for example, some potential BLP issues that need checking. I haven't listed my concerns here because it will be easier and quicker to make a few tweaks myself than to try to explain to someone else what needs to be done. I should be finished by the end of the weekend if not before. Gatoclass (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gatoclass has promised me he will be done with the overhaul of this article by Wednesday. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This has gone on far too long. We need a new reviewer who can either approve or reject this one.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 07:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I can not assess the neutrality of the whole article, but I'll say that the hook is not acceptable as it is not clearly linked to one spesific fact/sentence in the article, but rather is a summary of several facts/sentences. Also, naming the attendees as "Mike Gravel and conspiracy theorists" puts Mike Gravel in an unacceptable negative light for a DYK highlight. If conspiracy theorists were kept out of the hook, leaving just Mike Gravel as an attendee it would be an OK fact, and still interesting. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The wording used does not say that Gravel is a conspiracy theorist. Nevertheless, I'm okay with changing the hook to

ALT1 ... that attendees of the annual International Conference on Hollywoodism, held by the government of Iran in Tehran, include a former U.S. senator and presidential candidate?

if that will help things. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 verified against online sources. Good to go. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)