Talk:Mahmoud Reza Khavari

Khashayar Khavari

Here are my reasons for removal of the "Khashayar Khavari" section from this page

Having this sections violates multiple Wikipedia principles namely:

• WP:BLPBALANCE : "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". Also as a general rule in WP:BLP when dealing with Biographies of living persons you need to be extra careful when including any specific piece of info. Including a whole negative section about his son who is not notable by himself definitely steps out of bounds.
• WP:ATTACK : it borders on being an attack page
• WP:TOPIC & WP:UNDUE : When searching for "Mahmoud Reza Khavari" in google news 95% of articles are dealing with his history in Iran and the 2011 Iranian embezzlement scandal. There is one story about his son and the lawsuit in Toronto, dedicating a whole section to this a section bigger than his "Early life and education" & "Career" section put together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shemtovca (talk • contribs)

While I understand the concern about biographies of living persons, this case clearly does not constitute attacks or false claims. The article from "Globe and mail" dated July 8 2016 clearly makes a connection between Mahmoud Khavari, his son Khashayar Khavari and Sam Mizrahi as follows :"Five years ago, Sam Mizrahi, one of Toronto’s most ambitious real estate developers, found himself in a basement in the city’s Bridle Path neighbourhood. It was there, he says, he began to fear for his safety.In a span of just a few hours, one of the main financial backers of two of his luxury condominium projects, Mahmoud Khavari, had become one of Iran’s most wanted men, having left his position as the chairman of the country’s largest bank and fled to Canada amid a corruption scandal." and again here "He first met the Khavaris around 2008 when his company was hired by the family to design custom homes. He began mentoring Mr. Khavari’s two sons, Khashayar (Khash for short) and Ardavan, who were both in their twenties and had an interest in real-estate development. It was a mutually beneficial relationship, according to court documents: Mr. Mizrahi had the expertise and the Khavari family had money to invest." Thus the globe and mail article clearly says the source of the money was from Mahmoud Khavari who gave it to his sons Khashayar and Ardavan to invest in Mizrahi developments. Furthermore Mahmoud Khavari has a history of using his family in order to protect his fortune from being seized, he transferred his house in Toronto to his daughter (source https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/iranian-banker-gives-3-million-toronto-house-to-daughter/article554924/)

The article from "Financial post" dated June 17 2016 also makes similar assertions, that Mahmoud Khavari invested in Mizrahi developments, and he used his sons especially Khashayar as a front.

These articles are clearly written by neutral journalists from respected published sources and I dont see how this case would be related to WP:ATTACK. I think since Khashayar Khavari, based on the articles above, obtained the money from his father and was only working as an agent for his father, this section needs to remain. Assuming you had good intentions, I would suggest you add or modify what you think is necessary instead of removing sections completely. Masterofthename (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you have suggested for me to add it properly, i have just done that. Shemtovca (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding it all again under an even more ridiculous title is not better. There are not my demands and i don't have a gang. You have to stop with the accusations and the innuendo. You have suggested i should write it the way i believe it should be and i did. If you have an issue with it discuss what your issue is. Shemtovca (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The main thing you are trying to do is to remove the link between Khavari and Mizrahi, so let me be clear, do you think this article should mention the name Mizrahi or not? and if not why not. Masterofthename (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The main thing i am trying to do is to preserve the page on Wikipedia in encyclopedic format. I have read again the article, the lawsuit was between Khashayar and Mizrachi. This page is about Mahmoud Reza Khavari. I think the information from that whole story that is relevant to this page is how he tried to hide his assets by giving it to his sons, daughter and wife, which i added. The fact that his son had a lawsuit with a developer is irrelevant to the story of Mahmoud Reza Khavari. So having this whole section of Mizrachi in here makes as much sense as having a section about the lawyer that was used to transfer the property to the daughter or what real estate agent was used to purchase their residences. So no, i don't believe that the section about the lawsuit between Khashayar and Mizrachi should be on this page. So now that i answered this, can you explain why you believe that there needs to be more info on this page about this lawsuit than about his amazing career and crime, the things that made him notable? Shemtovca (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes the lawsuit is between Khashayar Khavari and Sam Mizrahi but the article clearly says the conflict was between Mahmoud Reza Khavari and Saam Mizrahi as the article is titled "Toronto developer" which is Sam Mizrahi, "Iranian Fugitive" which is Mahmoud Reza Khavari (Khashayar is not a fugitive) and the bitter condo feud. Thus the article is clearly about the "Iranian Fugitive" who is Mahmoud Reza Khavari not Khashayar Khavari. Second paragraph we read also :

In a span of just a few hours, one of the main financial backers of two of his luxury condominium projects, Mahmoud Khavari, had become one of Iran’s most wanted men, having left his position as the chairman of the country’s largest bank and fled to Canada amid a corruption scandal.

Unless you are reading a different article, the above mentioned article clearly says the other end of the conflict is Mahmoud Khavari not Khashayar Khavari. The lawsuit, which is in public domain, is between Khashayar Khavari and Sam Mizrahi as you mentioned. I think the best approach would be to say that the articles say Sam Mizrahi's conflict was with Mahmoud Khavari, but the lawsuit is between Khashayar Khavari and Sam Mizrahi. You can also complain to "the globe and mail" to retract the article, but until that source exists, there is a link between Mahmoud Khavari and Sam Mizrahi whether you like it or not.Masterofthename (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no complaint to "The Globe and Mail" in particular and media in general, their job is to be interesting & exciting to draw in readers. Sensationalism in journalism, the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement, is something that is prevalent. The encyclopedia has to be factual though, not sensational and since as you acknowledged the lawsuit is with Khashayar not Mahmoud Reza, the lawsuit doesn't belong on Mahmouds page. Shemtovca (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Basically what you are saying is that journalists are sensationalists and articles in journals are not really important and my own personal interpretation is way more important. I decide what information is "sensational" and what is not based on my "feelings" about that matter. Isn't that more suitable for a blog than an encyclopedia? Masterofthename (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not about the feelings, it is about the facts. And the fact is the lawsuit is with Khashayar not Mahmoud Reza. Shemtovca (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Then you can't be selective about which facts you like and which ones you don't, the article clearly says Mahmoud Khavari was behind the lawsuit but you don't like that fact, because journalists cant be trusted as much as user:Shemtovca's inside knowledge of this. If you let us, unenlightened ones know what you know about this story we, the ignorant masses, would appreciate it very much. Masterofthename (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, i am comparing public court records with the news article. I have no inside information, and you are again insinuating i am somehow connected to this. Unless you bring some new facts to this discussion i am not going to be responding to your continued attacks on my character and motives. Shemtovca (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

All i am saying is that with this logic that journalists can not be trusted half of the information on the Wikipedia should be removed, there is at least a million pages with the same "problem" but for some strange reason this logic only applies to this page. Masterofthename (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)