Talk:Nicholas Alahverdian/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Birth name
@Genericusername57: The infobox states that Rossi is the birth name. Should be remove/amend that as well? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Josve05a: Oh yes, thank you. gnu57 19:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Why would it be removed? His birth name is Rossi, not Alahverdian. SANTADICAE🎅 19:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- We should probably move to "Nicholas Rossi" at some point, since it's becoming the most prevalent name in RS, and it seems "Alahverdian" was another fake name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree, Alahverdian is what he's most commonly known by. It's just the recent flurry but those are likely to be amended. Alahverdian was not a fake name, it was a legal name change but due to WP:BLPPRIVACY I can not link it, nor can I link the original links for it since they've been oversighted. SANTADICAE🎅 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WAPO says
In fact, authorities allege, Alahverdian, whose actual last name is Rossi
and henceforth refers to him as Rossi, which is where I was getting that from. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)- Start an RM. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's the most common name in RS atm, and ofc I could be mistaken, so it's not worth bashing it through a 7 day process yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah even for those sources using Rossi, IMO better wait & see if they keep at it. If they do we can see if it's become the common name in a few months from now or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: It's fine with me to refer to him as Alahverdian since that's the most common name used and what most people will know him by (Example Luka Rocco Magnotta, whose birth name was Eric Newman), but I'm wondering which RS says Alahverdian is his birth name instead of Rossi? If his birth name is Rossi then the article should say that... whether we title the article Alahveridan or Rossi or refer to him one way or the other seems like a totally separate issue.EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Almost no RS refer to his birth name at all, the only sources that do are primary and a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY because they are court records. His birth name is Rossi but Alahverdian is the primary name he has been known by and is his legal name. However, we wouldn't change it to his birth name just by virtue of it being that if his name he is primarily known by is something else. I know i've been away for a while, but pretty sure naming standards haven't changed, have they? SANTADICAE🎅 23:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not arguing to change the name of the article. I'm questioning this edit [1]. Genericusername57 says his birth name is Alahverdian according to the Providence Journal... where does it say that? The Washington Post article (not a Primary Source) ProcrastinatingReader linked up above says his real name is Rossi. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and reverted that change. I don't really understand why it was made and the discussion over what to name the article is not relevant to whether we mention his (cited to RS) birth name in the infobox and lede. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Almost no RS refer to his birth name at all, the only sources that do are primary and a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY because they are court records. His birth name is Rossi but Alahverdian is the primary name he has been known by and is his legal name. However, we wouldn't change it to his birth name just by virtue of it being that if his name he is primarily known by is something else. I know i've been away for a while, but pretty sure naming standards haven't changed, have they? SANTADICAE🎅 23:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Genericusername57: It's fine with me to refer to him as Alahverdian since that's the most common name used and what most people will know him by (Example Luka Rocco Magnotta, whose birth name was Eric Newman), but I'm wondering which RS says Alahverdian is his birth name instead of Rossi? If his birth name is Rossi then the article should say that... whether we title the article Alahveridan or Rossi or refer to him one way or the other seems like a totally separate issue.EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah even for those sources using Rossi, IMO better wait & see if they keep at it. If they do we can see if it's become the common name in a few months from now or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's the most common name in RS atm, and ofc I could be mistaken, so it's not worth bashing it through a 7 day process yet. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Start an RM. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- WAPO says
- I disagree, Alahverdian is what he's most commonly known by. It's just the recent flurry but those are likely to be amended. Alahverdian was not a fake name, it was a legal name change but due to WP:BLPPRIVACY I can not link it, nor can I link the original links for it since they've been oversighted. SANTADICAE🎅 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- @EnPassant and Praxidicae: I think the sequence of name changes went "Alahverdian" -> "Rossi" -> "Alahverdian". ProQuest 396785899/[2] is a birth notice under the name Alahverdian. ProQuest 397255803/[3] (1996) also calls him Alahverdian, and indicates that he had a stepfather with the surname Rossi. ProQuest 397441956/[4] (2002) calls him Rossi, and ProQuest 821304092/[5] (2010) calls him Rossi-Alahverdian. This article (2011) states that he had changed (back?) to Alahverdian. I suggest saying something like "also known as ...", to avoid the whole question of birth and legal names. Cheers, gnu57 02:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. I like how it's set up currently. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Claims of criminality made (apparently) by Alahverdian
She stated that Alahverdian had been "beaten and forced to work without pay at gunpoint as a campaign manager in 2016 and was raped by a politician in 2002 and 2003", in addition to the abuse he had experienced in Rhode Island, under the care of DCYF, as well as the out-of-state centers in two other states
Does anyone think this should be removed? Serious claims about third parites, even unnamed ones, that originate (presumably, since the "widow" does not provably exist) from Alahverdian surely have no place here? FDW777 (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of Wikipedia's policies about unnamed third parties. But I think this should be removed (however, I can see how it might be a bit odd to say that "she" wrote this e-mail but not mention its contents). —AFreshStart (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- I would be removing the preceding sentence at the same time. FDW777 (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that even if we accept that the "widow" is a different person, as she's obviously lied about Alahverdian being dead there's no reason why anything she says can be trusted, so why should these serious claims be included? The same applies if Alahverdian wrote it, nothing he says can be trusted either. FDW777 (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I don't see the relevance of that part. I do think the preceding sentence (
After Alahverdian faked his death in 2020, a woman who identified herself as his widow sent a five-page email to The Providence Journal.
should be kept, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)- Since it was an email, I'd use "person" instead of "woman", though. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- or "someone identifying as his widow". Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with this latter version of identification. As for the claim, the sender is clearly not a RS. A rev-del may be in order too, questionable as no one was identified.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: - I've removed that sentence you quoted. By itself, it doesn't provide enough information regarding its importance. Also, it's covered in greater detail in the Authenticity of death questioned section. starship.paint (exalt) 08:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with this latter version of identification. As for the claim, the sender is clearly not a RS. A rev-del may be in order too, questionable as no one was identified.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- or "someone identifying as his widow". Black Kite (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Since it was an email, I'd use "person" instead of "woman", though. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
(outdent) I have no strong feelings whether it's kept or removed, but wanted to point out that the truthfulness of the claim shouldn't matter, all we need is to properly cite that the claim was made to meet guidelines and policy. Apart from that, it's just editorial consensus as to whether it should be included. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Latest news
I was reading a new article on one of Alahveridan's accusers and found news stories about him here and here from this week. I can't find mention of the Daily Record at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources so I'm not sure about incorporating this information into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I went searching through WP:RSN and did find two discussions, this and this. I also found other mentions of it in passing in the archives that basically said avoid it, but those weren't discussions just a one-off mention. It is apparently a tabloid, and the gist I got from those discussions is that it's not the best of sources. I think if the Daily Record is the only source reporting on it, we probably shouldn't include it. If it's not the only source, we should maybe consider using those other sources instead. Though when it says "The Sunday Mail can exclusively reveal..." it makes me think we're not going to find much else. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- There's some RS now running the news story: STV News [6] and The Providence Journal [7] & [8]. IndigoBeach (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some of these articles are behind a pay wall so I couldn't read them over. But I found this one interesting. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Convicted American sex offender wording
ResolvedSince I've reverted it I wanted to start a discussion about this edit. You'll find papers using the term "convicted American sex offender" to describe someone, for example the Telegraph, the Star, or USA Today. Books written about such topics similarly use such wording such as this book specifically about the criminal justice system written by an attorney who specializes in criminal law. I would think such a person would be too qualified to make a mistake if that were not the correct way to phrase that. Further in terms of consistency there are many, many other articles that put the word convicted before American, and that wording has even been used on the "Did you know..." section of the Main Page of Wikipedia. Even a category was renamed from Category:American convicted child molesters to Category:Convicted American child molesters because the discussion concluded that the first wording "did not read right". For these reasons I think at the very least there needs to be a discussion before it is changed. - Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you're correct here, Kbabe's explanation makes the most sense in American English PRAXIDICAE🌈 02:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- USA Today and the book I mentioned are American English examples, and searching for "American convicted sex offender" in quotes doesn't turn up any American news sources (or really any reliable sources) using that specific phrasing, whereas searching for "convicted American sex offender" does turn up reliable sources using that wording. Fox News is American and they used "convicted American rapist" to describe someone as did the Senate of the State of Hawaii. I've given American government, American media, and American judicial system examples of why this exact phrasing is used in American English. - Aoidh (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The wording, as you’re suggesting it, seems very unusual to me. He’s not a “convicted American”. He’s an American who’s been convicted of something. As I understand BLPs, the nationality/citizenship is introduced, then the short description. —Kbabej (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- This sounds like something for WT:MOSBIO to help standardize. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @DMacks! Doesn’t it at WP:LEADBIO? First citizenship (#3), then notability (ie short description) (#5)? —Kbabej (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:LEADBIO does not state that it need be in that order, and even the examples on that page do not follow a number-by-number reading. The wording doesn't say he's a "convicted American" it says he's a "convicted American sex offender" we can't cut the description off halfway through and then say that it makes no sense. Of course it makes no sense like that, it's not complete. Can you give a reason why you think it should be changed other than the fact that it seems very unusual to you? I think I've done a fair job of showing, through reliable sources, that the current wording is how it should be worded, as it reflects actual English usage. - Aoidh (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- If there's still any doubt about what to do, how about just removing convicted from the sentence? Just as we don't call someone an American murderer until there's a murder conviction, the reader should be able to infer in this case that there has been a conviction for a sex offense. At least some of the eight references in the opening sentence describe the conviction, and it is discussed in the body of the article. I do think we could benefit from specific guidance in the MOS. We run into this a lot in sports articles ("American former professional baseball player", "former American professional baseball player"). Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Larry Hockett, I agree with this. "Convicted" seems redundant. We wouldn't use "convicted con artist" or "convicted arsonist". If convicted, that's already implied. --Kbabej (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure who "we" is since there's no consensus or discussion about that on Wikipedia that I could find, but a quick Google search shows that reliable sources do use those phrases (less so for "convicted con artist", but "con artist" isn't itself a crime). - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Larry Hockett, I agree with this. "Convicted" seems redundant. We wouldn't use "convicted con artist" or "convicted arsonist". If convicted, that's already implied. --Kbabej (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, under LEADBIO every single example lists nationality/citizenship first, then short description. The current wording implies the subject is a former American, which is not the case. Also, I did use the term "unusual" to describe it. That's not the reason per se it should be reordered; it should be reordered because its technically not correct as written now and seems to go against every example at LEADBIO, as well as every GA BLP I've seen on WP (and having done a few of those myself). --Kbabej (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kbabej: I don't know if we're looking at the same examples on LEADBIO. There are four examples, and the first two very specifically do not put the nationality first. I also think you meant convicted, not former so I'm going to respond accordingly, as former is a completely different word and concept (and would be a completely different conversation, that's an apples to oranges discussion). American is not the noun here. It's not saying he's a convicted American. American is used as an adjective to describe and clarify the noun, it is not the noun itself. He's an American sex offender. What kind? A convicted American sex offender. There's nothing technically incorrect about that. If there's been a prior consensus on whether the word "convicted" goes before or after the nationality I'd love to see it, as your comment about GA BLPs implies that it's been discussed at some point. As you'll see in my comment above, the current wording is how the American government, American media, and American criminal attorneys word it. Why are they all wrong but you're right? - Aoidh (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- If there's still any doubt about what to do, how about just removing convicted from the sentence? Just as we don't call someone an American murderer until there's a murder conviction, the reader should be able to infer in this case that there has been a conviction for a sex offense. At least some of the eight references in the opening sentence describe the conviction, and it is discussed in the body of the article. I do think we could benefit from specific guidance in the MOS. We run into this a lot in sports articles ("American former professional baseball player", "former American professional baseball player"). Larry Hockett (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:LEADBIO does not state that it need be in that order, and even the examples on that page do not follow a number-by-number reading. The wording doesn't say he's a "convicted American" it says he's a "convicted American sex offender" we can't cut the description off halfway through and then say that it makes no sense. Of course it makes no sense like that, it's not complete. Can you give a reason why you think it should be changed other than the fact that it seems very unusual to you? I think I've done a fair job of showing, through reliable sources, that the current wording is how it should be worded, as it reflects actual English usage. - Aoidh (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @DMacks! Doesn’t it at WP:LEADBIO? First citizenship (#3), then notability (ie short description) (#5)? —Kbabej (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- This sounds like something for WT:MOSBIO to help standardize. DMacks (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like there is a (weak) consensus to edit the description. Of the editors who have expressed a preference (rather than positing a question and leaving a preference out), two agree with removal (PRAXIDICAE and myself), and a third (Larry Hockett) has suggested removal of the word "convicted" from the sentence to solve the issue. The only editor stating the preference they want the wording to stay the same is Aoidh. I'll be updating the lead with the removal of "convicted", which will align the description for the way a weak majority of editors in this discussion have stated they prefer. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a consensus, and reliable sources disagree with you. You can't conveniently ignore that fact. Why are all these different sources wrong, but you're the one that's right? Where's the prior GAR discussion you were alluding to? You can't just ignore the discussion when you don't like the points raised and make your edit anyways. - Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a consensus. Three editors support removal and one supports keeping it. The ONUS is on you to convince editors why your description should stay. Also, I think some OWN is coming into this. --Kbabej (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- One editor making a comment that American English should be used, which was pointed out that the current wording is American English, and one editor saying it should be removed outright, do not make a consensus. "Three editors support removal" where? Which three? I have restored it per WP:STATUSQUO, because you have provided no evidence that it should be removed other than your assertion that you don't like the wording. That is insufficient. Also, consensus is not a vote, it is viewed through the lens of previous consensus, guidelines, and policy. WP:RS is a policy. The reliable sources say this exact wording. What are you citing to justify its removal? - Aoidh (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you're reading my replies thoroughly, @Aoidh. You ask "which three" editors support rewording. I just described that moments ago in the thread you're commenting on, stating which editors said what. Yes, WP:RS is a policy. No one is disputing that. No one is saying the RS are wrong per se. What I am saying is the wording is not consistent LEADBIO and WP practice, though we seem to disagree on that point. Respectfully, I don't think we'll agree on this, as there seem to be some ownership issues here and a refusal to consider other viewpoints. I've asked for additional eyes on this, and will let others discuss. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, you're making assertions and when asked to clarify, refuse to do so. What part of LEADBIO supports this? Where is this GAR consensus? You're making a lot of claims with no evidence. - Aoidh (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, for clarity, I did not say there was a GAR consensus for this. I said "...as well as every GA BLP I've seen on WP". There is a distinction between the two, which I'm sure you can appreciate. My point in brining that up is that I believe the current wording is not common practice. As for LEADBIO, I've already told you how I was interpreting it, to which you responded in this section. I stated LEADBIO states "First citizenship (#3), then notability (ie short description) (#5)". I have explained the rationale for how I interpret WP policy and common practice. My goal is not to edit war or be "right" on this; I didn't even follow the page when I made the first edit until you reverted the change. I hope you do not see this as combative; my goal is to simply have the lead in line with common practice. --Kbabej (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, you're making assertions and when asked to clarify, refuse to do so. What part of LEADBIO supports this? Where is this GAR consensus? You're making a lot of claims with no evidence. - Aoidh (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you're reading my replies thoroughly, @Aoidh. You ask "which three" editors support rewording. I just described that moments ago in the thread you're commenting on, stating which editors said what. Yes, WP:RS is a policy. No one is disputing that. No one is saying the RS are wrong per se. What I am saying is the wording is not consistent LEADBIO and WP practice, though we seem to disagree on that point. Respectfully, I don't think we'll agree on this, as there seem to be some ownership issues here and a refusal to consider other viewpoints. I've asked for additional eyes on this, and will let others discuss. Cheers. --Kbabej (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- One editor making a comment that American English should be used, which was pointed out that the current wording is American English, and one editor saying it should be removed outright, do not make a consensus. "Three editors support removal" where? Which three? I have restored it per WP:STATUSQUO, because you have provided no evidence that it should be removed other than your assertion that you don't like the wording. That is insufficient. Also, consensus is not a vote, it is viewed through the lens of previous consensus, guidelines, and policy. WP:RS is a policy. The reliable sources say this exact wording. What are you citing to justify its removal? - Aoidh (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is a consensus. Three editors support removal and one supports keeping it. The ONUS is on you to convince editors why your description should stay. Also, I think some OWN is coming into this. --Kbabej (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's not a consensus, and reliable sources disagree with you. You can't conveniently ignore that fact. Why are all these different sources wrong, but you're the one that's right? Where's the prior GAR discussion you were alluding to? You can't just ignore the discussion when you don't like the points raised and make your edit anyways. - Aoidh (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
That's what I don't understand, you're citing a common practice. Where is this commonly practiced? - Aoidh (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that convicted is now redundant as it's well established - so "is an American sex-offender" is appropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Pence
ResolvedMike Pence was not yet vice president in 2013. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like that's been updated! --Kbabej (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Update from BBC news
—QueenofBithynia (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Requested move 6 October 2022
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Nicholas Alahverdian → Nicholas Rossi – Seems to be the common name used in RS - Google News gives me 1,370 results for "Nicholas Alahverdian" and 2,450 results for "Nicholas Rossi". "Rossi" also seems to be used in more recent reports - e.g. this BBC article (mentioned above), published today. QueenofBithynia (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- The names are used alternately, but his apparently legal name was Alahverdian and that's the name he was using when he was doing his advocacy work and initially (borderline) notable. I say it's fine like it is, and Nicholas Rossi already redirects to the current article, so there should be no confusion amongst readers. OrgoneBox (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Scottish conviction in lede
My recent addition of Alahverdian's Scottish conviction to the lede was reverted by user:Aoidh with the edit summary:
I don't think a conviction for a common offence is so important to the article's subject that it should be included in the lede so prominently, especially when the article itself doesn't expand upon this in any meaningful way.
which in itself is a reasonable argument. However, it was not my contention that the conviction itself was especially significant, so much as the fact that Alahverdian has criminal convictions in two separate countries.
Also, of course the article can be made to "expand upon this in a meaningful way".
What do others think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping and for starting the discussion. The only issue I have is including it in the lede itself, given that the Scotland charge is a minor offence that only has a small fine as punishment; it's not a significant conviction and while it's verifiably true, I don't think it's something he's known for or that defines the article's subject. There's also the issue with the lede being a summary of the article itself, and unless I'm missing it the article doesn't discuss this in any detail, which is something that can be addressed but I don't think it's an important point that needs to be highlighted; his legal issues in Scotland are touched on and this charge is a minor aspect. - Aoidh (talk) 14:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Would have to agree, it is WP:UNDUE for the lede, even if mentioned within the article body, and it should be.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Quite agree here, as the lede is only lacking extradition, US judgment and possible sentencing, imo.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I would say it's worth adding to the body someplace, but not the lede, which is meant to summarize the main body of the article. It was also unsourced and this is a BLP. Such additions need a reliable source. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Would have to agree, it is WP:UNDUE for the lede, even if mentioned within the article body, and it should be.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article longer than Moby Dick?
This seems like an excessive amount of detail for an article on a fairly unremarkable person. Of course, he has done many wicked things, but so have many others; there are currently thousands of people in prison for grisly acts of murder, rape, robbery, and the like. As far as I can tell, his notability is mostly a consequence of the incident in which he faked his own death -- so why the lurid details on every place he went to high school? jp×g 12:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- People like drama, I suppose; I think it stemmed originally from the dearth of information about the subject, then a sudden resurgence when it turned out he was still alive. I would not be opposed to a shortening of the biography section. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Probably also the fact that this was (partly) a Wikipedia controversy as well, which would obviously be more of interest to people who edit Wikipedia. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Why is the article on Pokemon longer than the one on Claude Monet? Why is the one on Ivanka Trump longer than the one on Madeline Albright? What do all these questions have in common? I think this article is fine like it is. The length of one article bears no relationship to the length of another and these kinds of comparisons are purely subjective. OrgoneBox (talk) 01:19, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think JPxG was referencing Moby Dick, not Moby Dick. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, maybe so. Still, it looks like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to me. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- The cause of an article's length exceeding its subject's significance may be attributed to the overabundance of "minor" media coverage, which Wikipedia's editors often add to articles indiscriminately. Even if it appears in the NYT, it may be entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Quisqualis (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, maybe so. Still, it looks like a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to me. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I think JPxG was referencing Moby Dick, not Moby Dick. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the article is amazingly long and detailed given that Alahverdian is just a petty criminal. However, I do not think it should not be shortened or streamlined in any way. We need to keep in mind that this is Wikipedia, not Encyclopaedia Britannica or some other academically rigorous source of information. Wikipedia's supposed to be an amateur encyclopedia, written by enthusiastic layman who should not be held to the high standards society reserves for contributors to The New York Review of Books.
Let's look at it this way. Why would anyone want to read an article about Alahverdian? Certainly not because he is a prominent person. Rather, people are fascinated by his reputation as a scoundrel and fraudster. In that sense, this article serves the same purpose as a scandal sheet or a tabloid newspaper. Readers want to revel in the details of his criminal career. Therefore, the present, lengthy, comprehensive, abundantly referenced article is perfect. It gives the intended reading audience exactly what that audience wants to know.
IMO, the editors here (all well intended people) should loosen-up a little. Forget about exacting academic or editorial standards, aside from ensuring this particular article's content is properly referenced and written. Stay focused on giving the intended audience (which is probably quite large) the full satisfaction of learning all the details about Alahverdian. Kenmore (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)