Jump to content

Talk:Mohamed Hadid/Archives/2018

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because there is extensive coverage of Hadid in reliable sources, and he passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

More Hasbara trolls of Israel trying to get rid of Palestinians in the media. Can't get rid of DJ Khaled, Mohammad Hadid, can you? Makes you yamaka bitches so angry.... Dundun1984 (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to get this page locked to Israeli trolls trying to change the content. Dundun1984 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

He is also notable per WP:NOLYMPICS for competing in the 1992 Winter Olympics. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Israeli?

Born in Nazareth, which is located in Israel...is he an Israeli citizen?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like it was still (just) Mandatory Palestine when he was born, and the family left for Damascus in 1948. So never an Israeli. Edwardx (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Edwardx: Does this mean he's British?Zigzig20s (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Zigzig20s, I don't think the people living in the Mandate qualified for British citizenship/nationality. Edwardx (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? He is a Palestinian. Stop trying to claim him as an Israeli Idiot Dundun1984 (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No one is saying that Hadid is an idiot, merely that Nazareth is in present day Israel. Edwardx (talk) 23:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Israel will soon steal the entire West Bank, doesn't mean it is legal or the people that were there are Israelis or ever were. Dundun1984 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • How is that relevant? When Hadid was born, Nazareth was in Mandatory Palestine, and months later it was in Israel. Nazareth has never been in the West Bank. And the article does not mention that he is or ever was Israeli, merely that his birthplace is in present day Israel. That is all in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Hadid may once have had nationality and/or citizenship other than American, but I am yet to find evidence for what it might be, and I can't see how it could be construed as being "Palestinian". Edwardx (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are you even on this page? Another Zionist cunt hasbara troll trying yet again to deny Palestinians are successful and wealthy. Look at Hollywood today. Palestinians everywhere: DJ Khaled, Gigi Hadid, Belly the rapper, the lead singer of Magic!.. Doesn't matter what you trolls try to do, these people willl always be Palestinian. I am Palestinian myself, and that is why I am editing this article. Why are you here arguing with me?Get a life dude, and quit trying to fuck around with people even over a god damn wikipedia page. Get the fuck over it. This article should be locked to the zionist trolls of Israel. How much is the Hasbara paying you to troll all day to try to get rid of Palestine in the media? Dundun1984 (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Go to Gigi Hadid's instagram and look for her henna tattoo pic and read the entire caption underneth it. This page wont let me link anything from my phone for some reason. Dundun1984 (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Hadid and his daughter may identify as being of Palestinian heritage/ancestry, but "Nationality: Palestinian" is misleading. I don't think that Al Jazeera quite say that, and even if they do, they are incorrect. He was born during the British Mandate, which is quite a different thing, and in what soon became Israel. Of course, he almost certainly never had Israeli nationality. British nationality law gives some guidance, as does Mandatory Palestine passport. It might be better to say that Hadid had Mandatory Palestinian nationality, but he may have been stateless and/or became Syrian. It is quite hard to know. And I can't find anything to confirm that he is American by citizenship/nationality. He has lived in the US for several decades, it seems unlikely that he is not. Edwardx (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
OK, I have removed "Palestinian" from his page then. It remains a mystery.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Palestinian isn't a piece of paper, it is a culture. You people can do all the changing you want to these pages to make them pro-Israeli, but that wont change Mohamed constantly acknowledging that he is Palestinian on his social meida sites and his children doing the same. Do not keep saying I am attacking anyone for Stating the truth. Israelis have no culture, and have stolen Palestinian culture for decades. You people are even so low to search wikipedia sites for Palestinian celebrities to change them to not being Palestinian. That is how low Israel has gotten. Too bad Palestinian culture will never die. Keep acting like you people are actually doing research on this topic, but I am not stupid. I am going to try and get this page to be locked so Israeli backed trolls cannot change the content. Dundun1984 (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

And incidentally, to the editors who are adding "now Israel" to "Palestine," that is contrary to Wikipedia form. We don't say someone was "born in the U.S.S.R. (now Russia)" or "born in Carthage (now Libya)". --Tenebrae (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You ignore the fact that he was born in the British protectorate, a sector which is now part of Israel. You want to rewrite both the facts of his birth and the succession of a political unit? We should go with facts. I am not arguing over his citizenship or the place that issues his passport. That all may be quite different, although we need a WP:RS if you want to include that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Concur with 7&6=thirteen. The article never said that he was born in "Palestine", rather "Mandatory Palestine" , which is quite a different thing. Nazareth is in present-day Israel, and usages such as USSR/Russia are quite common on Wikipedia. To talk of Carthage/Libya is just silly. Edwardx (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
This New York Times article says he is a Jordanian-American dual citizen. I added a direct quote to make this very clear. The article fails to explain when he was naturalized as a US citizen, however.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Fine. Mandatory Palestine. Don't quibble over inadvertently leaving out a word. The principle is the same: We don't say "Born in the U.S.S.R (now Russia)" or "born in Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe we should add "now Israel", as others who read the article are bound to be just as confused by "Mandatory Palestine" as I was. Besides, it's factual.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
No one who can click on the bluelink Mandatory Palestine should be confused in the least. And more importantly, we don't fiddle about with Wikipedia Manual of Style without widespread discussion and consensus. You think we should include the modern name of all nations where someone anytime in history was born, a la "Carthage (now Libya)", you're free to take it to an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
People should not have to click on links, if we can reasonably avoid it. Your interpretation of policy is mistaken, and I'm disappointed that you are repeating this "Carthage (now Libya)" silliness. If you want a pertinent example of how we treat this sort of BLP, have a look at the infobox for Vladimir Putin. Edwardx (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

First, yes, the whole reason we have links to other articles is so people can click on them. Second [{WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] — You can find a Putin example that goes against MOS, and I could find a dozen more that don't. Cherrypicking an isolated example is meaningless. Carthage/Libya is no sillier than what's being proposed here. It has nothing to do with the article subject and everything to do with WP:SOAPBOXING to make some political point. Wikipedia is not the place for that.

In any event, I'm restoring the infobox to its status quo and beginning an RfC. According to protocol, the contested part of the article remains at the original status quo until the RfC is concluded. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae: I hope you are not assuming bad faith on my part. I am not trying to make any "political" points. Just trying to avoid confusion for readers, since I was confused by his birthplace too.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
.User:Zigzig20s, I obviously can't say with certainty what people's motivations are. What I can say with certainty is that this kind of editing happened at the article for Gigi Hadid, where pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors fought each other, and I and other editors had to fight to keep things neutral and without even the appearance of political advocacy. Admins found the politically motivated edits there to be inappropriate, so I'd imagine they'd do so here. It's an unnecessary edit in that anyone can clink on Mandatory Palestine the way they can on GDR or other old nation-states. And even if unintended it absolutely gives the impression of being politically motivated. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Tenebrae: Your impression is misguided. You ought to assume good faith.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm basing my views on what I saw happen at Gigi Hadid and elsewhere. I'm not sure you're acknowledging how big a problem this has been on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

He was born in November 1948, so Nazareth was Israel, not Mandatory Palestine. The Mandate ended on 14th May 1948 at midnight. The same afternoon Israel declared its independence and this was immediately recognized by the US and USSR. This entire argument is academic. Monosig (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it is academic. The consensus for "(now Israel)" was reached with thre RfC below. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Further to the point made by Monosig above, the Wikipedia article on Nazareth notes that the city fell to Israeli troops on July 16, 1948, which is to say over three months before Hadid was born. That being the case, he was born in Nazareth, Israel (not Nazareth (now Israel) and not Mandatory Palestine, which came to an end on May 15 of that year. May we now correct this mistake? In addition, we should call to task the employment of hate-filled terminology on this talk page, specifically "Zionist cunt hasbara troll and "Idiot" by Dundun1984. Wikipedia's strict policy is to maintain a NPOV. Clearly, Dundun1984's purpose in joining Wikipedia as an editor is to distort Wikipedia articles for propaganda purposes. This is also evident in the assertion that "Israel will soon steal the entire West Bank." None of us is a clairvoyant. Zozoulia (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Zozoulia: Please see the RfC below. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for: Nazareth (now Israel). This is a bit complex, since the original proposal seemed to be for "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)", and drew a lot of support in that form, but as Number 57 correctly observes, per our article, Mandatory Palestine ended in May 1948, so if Hadid was born in November, he was not born in Mandatory Palestine. The support for "(now Israel)" however is undeniable, and supported both by examples and policy as the supporters cite, and from reading the arguments, I feel sure that support for that parenthetical would not be very affected by what was in front of it. Number 57 goes on to suggest "Nazareth, Israel", on the grounds that in November the city was under Israeli military control, but that control does not make it part of Israel, as the war was ongoing until 1949. There are a few other supporters for that phrasing, for other reasons, but only a few, and it has strong opposition from Oncenawhile, and the fact that Hadid himself clearly opposes it, while not conclusive, is not to be ignored; it's a very controversial issue, and while I haven't looked into just how strongly he is involved in the controversy, but some certainly would oppose it enough to make it a WP:BLP violation without impeccable and indisputable sources, which we clearly don't have here. So the options include not writing anything for country at the time, as I have bolded here, and - my suggestion only, as this didn't come up in the RfC, so clearly doesn't have consensus yet, but I'm guessing wouldn't be strongly opposed - adding a sentence in a short footnote that explains the situations, something like: "Mandatory Palestine was dissolved in May 1948; in November 1948, when Hadid was born, Nazareth was under Israeli control during the then ongoing 1948 Arab–Israeli War, and became part of Israeli borders in 1949.", hopefully with a source reference or two. Another option which might work is "Nazareth, [[Palestine (region)|]], (now Israel)", which is indisputably accurate, but not really a country as such, so could be debatable, and also didn't come up in the discussion, so can't be said to have consensus. Until then, though, Nazareth (now Israel). --GRuban (talk) 12:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Should the article include "(now Israel)" next to mentions of Mandatory Palestine, the name of the place at the time the subject was born?

  • No It is not Wikipedia practice to give the current names of every country where someone was born. We don't say "(now Myanmar)" for people born in Burma (Zienia Merton), or "(now the Czech Republic)" or "(now Slovakia)" for those born in Czechoslovakia (David Zeman), or "(now Germany)" for people born in East Germany a.k.a. GDR (Ingrid Auerswald), or "(now Tanzania)" for those born in Tanganyika (Shiraz Sumar), etc., etc. The infobox here is being used as a political football to make a WP:SOAPBOXING point, which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes Tenebrae is mistaken. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Proper_names#Place_names, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." The subject was born in Nazareth in 1948, which within months was geographically in Israel (incidentally, Nazareth has never formed part of any post-1948 conception of "Palestine"). Selecting four obscure biographies where the policy has not been followed is misleading, especially as the situation in those countries is not a good analogue for Mandatory Palestine/Israel. I have already suggested the Vladimir Putin infobox as being a more appropriate example, especially as the USSR/Russia comparison is a far closer geopolitical analogue. Indeed, policy suggests that if we were to mention only one country, that country would be Israel, not Mandatory Palestine. It should be noted that I have never had any wish to make a "political" point, quite the opposite, and normally do my best to avoid anything to with Israel/Palestine, and the wikidrama that such things all too often sadly entail. Edwardx (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the Putin example for reasons I could get into, but I'd like to focus on the common ground User:Edwardx and I may have. There is drama at even the most innocent of articles involving Israel/Palestine: At the article for this subject's daughter, Gigi Hadid, for instance, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors fought each other, and I and other editors had to fight to keep things neutral and without even the appearance of political advocacy. Aside from my feeling that anyone can click on Mandatory Palestine the way they can on GDR or other old nation-states, Edwardx and I both seem to recognize that edits adding Israel or Palestine to articles involving one or the other give the unmistakeable appearance of politically motivated edits. Aside from anything else, the simplest solution is to be as neutral as possible. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer to simply focus on the straightforward point at issue. The relevant policy would support either "Nazareth, Israel" or "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)". You have not adduced any policy in support of your preferred wording of "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine". If you cannot make a policy-based argument, could you please just withdraw this RfC, so that we can focus our time on building a better encyclopedia. Thank you. Edwardx (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
As the MOS section you yourself quote says, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context..." It is not appropriate here. Wikipedia should not be a place for political partisans to press points about Israel or the Palestinians. Giving anything other than the geographic name at the time of his birth, "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine", needlessly and very inappropriately injects a political element into a straightforward biographical article. Leaving the raw, undisputed fact is the most neutral thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This now uses two accurate descriptors (one historical) to better orient the readers to time and place. This is not a political dispute. It is about giving the Wikipedia readers relevant factual information.
Rather, it is the latest in a long line of complaints that are a news foray into historic revisionism. This might be the order of the day in other times, places and regimes, but it doesn't work in Wikipedia. I agree fully with Edwardx. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Making an accusation of historical revisionism clearly makes your argument political in nature. It is not this article's place to argue Palestinian / Israeli land issues. We don't put modern countries names next to Tanganyika or GDR, so trying to do so here is clearly making the page a political football. We should stick to the plain, inarguable fact of where he was born. I know a lot of people don't like the word "Palestine," but that's no reason whatsoever to politicize a plain-vanilla fact. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You are the one who is playing the "political" card. You have put up a straw man argument. It is a fact that he was born in Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No, you did when you accused someone of practicing "historical revisionism". And we agree on the fact of where he was born, so I'm not sure why you're acting as if we don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • (Pinged from feedback request service) Support the "born in Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)" wording. Hadid is not Israeli-born, so we shouldn't say just Israel. But "Mandatory Palestine" is not a present-day country and the name may be less familiar to many readers, so we should quote both names so readers have a better chance to know in what country his birthplace now is without having to divert into other articles: Noyster (talk), 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Quibbling that "Libya" should have been "Tunisia" is beside the point.
  • And it is simply incorrect to call it a false analogy. Here is the other editor's comment with the name of the locale changed. How is his argument different? It is not: "But 'Carthage'" is not a present-day country and the name may be less familiar to many readers, so we should quote both names so readers have a better chance to know in what country his birthplace now is without having to divert into other articles." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • If we're going back to the ancient world, we are told that Trajan ... was born ... in the Roman province of Hispania Baetica (in what is now Andalusia in modern Spain) and of Hadrian that ... Italica near Santiponce (in modern-day Spain) is often considered his birthplace.... Are the bracketed insertions the work of Spanish nationalists, or of writers who try to be helpful to the reader?: Noyster (talk), 19:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

A reminder to all participants: Until the RfC is concluded, we do not change the wording of the disputed section. Feedback is not an RfC-consensus close. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment "Nazareth, Israel" is definitely unacceptable. His company website [1] says "He was born in 1948 in Nazareth, Palestine. His father taught English at the University of Jerusalem. When he was two months old, his mother took him to stay with her mother in Damascus. While they were there, the state of Israel was born in Palestine. When Hadid’s mother returned to Nazareth with the baby, she found an empty house. Hadid says that his father had been expelled. Hadid became a refugee."
As to whether we should say "(now Israel)" afterwards, I am ambivalent but we don't do it for Mahmoud Abbas either. See also List of Palestinians.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Where is the policy to support the contention that " 'Nazareth, Israel' is definitely unacceptable"? That quote is from the "press coverage" section of Hadid's company website, and they are the words of a journalist, not Hadid himself. Just because we don't mention that Safed is now in Israel for Abbas, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't, or that the wording there is supported by policy. And we all know how quickly "(now Israel)" would be removed from the Abbas bio by POV editors, and likely lead to wikidrama. Also, Abbas was born 13 years before Safed became part of Israel, Hadid was born in Nazareth in 1948, mere months before it became Israel. Edwardx (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Edwardx, it is definitely unacceptable because it is not true. He was born in Mandatory Palestine. Not only that, but his family left before it ever became Israel.
You are correct that it is a press article (thanks for the thorough sourcing); I didn't notice that at first. It is written in the style of a biographical interview - it is written as so suggest Hadid was directly interviewed for the purposes of the article. And the fact that it is printed on Hadid's own company website suggests he supports its veracity. So it is a reasonably strong source here.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I think you are being unnecessarily disparaging about your reference to wikidrama. I mean, it is true, but it is true in many areas. Imagine trying to write that Jesus was born in "Bethlehem, West Bank", or that William Wallace was born in Elderslie, United Kingdom... Oncenawhile (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Since I don't see the editors arguing for "(now Israel)" attempting to do the same at other biographies involving defunct geographic regions, it is clearly an attempt to politicize the article, as editors tried to do at Gigi Hadid until admins put a stop to it. And politicizing Wikipedia is against the policy at WP:SOAPBOX. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Tenebrae: No one is trying to "politicize" anything. Please assume good faith! I frankly find it inappropriate of you not to assume good faith about the other editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It's not a matter of faith (so to speak). It's a matter of Wikipedia history. Articles involving Israel and the Palestinians are very frequently politicized. That's an indisputable fact. And editors making the "(now Israel)" argument here are not making it in biographies not involving Israel and the Palestinians. We don't throw out our analytical faculties based on good faith. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence contrary. I've given two pieces of evidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • On first mention only, it's appropriate to mention its modern name (Israel). I just checked some of the other articles I've worked on. Emma Goldman, a featured article, says "Kovno, Russian Empire" in the infobox and "the Lithuanian city of Kaunas (called Kovno at the time, part of the Russian Empire)" in the text. Alexander Berkman, a good article, says "Vilnius, Vilna Governorate, Russian Empire" in the infobox and "the Lithuanian city of Vilnius (then called Vilna, and part of the Vilna Governorate in the Russian Empire)" in the text. Szmul Zygielbojm says "Borowica, Russian Empire (now Poland)" in the infobox and "Borowica, Poland (then under control of the Russian Empire)" in the text. (For the record, I came here because of a notice at WT:IPCOLL.) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • With respect to my good colleague Malik Shabazz, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We don't do this at Hannibal or a large number of other biographies. All of us can cherry-pick. And articles involving Israel and the Palestinians have proven to be historically vulnerable on WIkipedia to attempts to politicize them one way or the other. I believe stating the plain, indisputable fact without elaboration is the fairest and most neutral path. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • With all respect to you as well, Tenebrae, that essay says:
This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who have made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "other stuff exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology. ... Non-fiction literature, such as encyclopedias, is expected to be internally consistent. As such, arguing in favor of consistency among Wikipedia articles is not inherently wrong–it is to be preferred. Only when the precedent is itself in conflict with policy, guidelines or common sense is it wrong to argue that it should be followed elsewhere. Whether a given instance of something can serve as a precedent for some other instance must be decided by way of consensus. (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Precedent in usage) — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Malik. I think we agree that consistency is desirable. My point is that there is no consistency on this throughout Wikipedia, and either side of the issue can cherry-pick. Though I would venture to say the vast majority of references to defunct countries, from Carthage to the GDR, do not include the modern-day country. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, per MOS: "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses." If it was just "born in Nazareth" no clarification would be necessary, but since the article makes it "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine" then standard modern name is "(now Nazareth, Israel)" which can be shortened to just "(now Israel)". “WarKosign” 12:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As the MOS section you quote says, "If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context..." It is not appropriate here. Wikipedia should not be a place for political partisans to press points about Israel or the Palestinians, as was attempted at Gigi Hadid until admins put a stop to that. The same thing is happening here, and so giving anything other than the geographic name at the time of his birth needlessly and very inappropriately injects a political element into a straightforward biographical article. Leaving the raw, undisputed fact is the most neutral thing. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Tenebrae, the MOS provides a clear policy. The "different name" in this case would be "Mandatory Palestine". By your reasoning, the "raw, undisputed fact" would have to be "Nazareth, Israel". MOS only supports "Nazareth, Israel", or "Nazareth, Mandatory Palestine (now Israel)". I can't understand why you can't or won't accept the clear policy in the MOS. If you are not happy with that policy, why not discuss it in the appropriate forum, rather than here? Edwardx (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    • No, you are misreading the MOS. "Mandatory Palestine" is not a "different name" since that was the name of the place when he was born. Israel did not yet exist, so it's impossible to say the MOS supports that he was born in "Nazareth, Israel". As happened at his daughter's article, this is an attempt at politicizing Wikipedia, and as per the policy WP:SOAPBOX, that is inappropriate and disallowed. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Tenebrae, no one else agrees with your bizarre interpretation of policy. I'm not going to spend any more time arguing with someone who won't listen to reason. Please go ahead and have the last word. Edwardx (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes I did agree with your analysis. And I strongly disagree with Edwardx's suggestion that MOS would support "Nazareth, Israel" - that is wholly misleading as has been explained above.
Is there a reliable source for the November birth (the two in the article do not seem to qualify under WP:RS)? Either way though, he was not born in Israel. Israel was declared on the basis of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which included Nazareth in the Arab state (even today, Nazareth is known as the "Arab capital of Israel", primarily because of the efforts in 1948 of Ben Dunkelman [2]). Whilst Nazareth surrendered to Israeli forces in July, it was legally an "occupied territory" until the 1949 Armistice Agreements.
But a November birth would mean he wasn't born in Mandatory Palestine either, since the Mandate was given up in May.
Oncenawhile (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah. I didn't look at the cite and just presumed it was RS. And I guess the geographic designation until 1949 is disputable. I'm wondering now if perhaps simply "Nazareth" is the one indisputable, factual claim? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

Tenebrae, can you explain this edit?

Edwardx, could we discuss your international recognition point here instead of via edit comments. I have tried to explain the point in detail above to no response. Most recently you wrote "International recognition of Israel is clear - "the State of Israel, which was established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948". While your point is accurate, it is not relevant. The State of Palestine was declared in 1988 - does that mean that someone born in East Jerusalem today would be born in "Palestine"? No. So, back to 1948. As I have explained above, in November 1948 Nazareth was occupied territory in the middle of a war. Israel neither had, nor claimed, sovereignty over the city at that time - when Israel declared independence based on the 1947 partition plan, Nazareth was NOT intended to be part of Israel. So Nazareth was in legal limbo. Perhaps a better analogy is someone born in 1940 Warsaw was born in occupied Poland, not in Germany. It is 100% certain that Nazareth in November 1948 was not yet legally part of Israel. If you disagree, I suggest you find a source to support you.

As I have said, I am in favour of Nazareth (now Israel). Given the legal limbo, I don't think we should state exactly which country Nazareth was in in November 1948, unless and until we have a source. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oncenawhile, the Israeli Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948 is relevant, as that date is was what was formally recognised in 1949. If and when any "State of Palestine" is formally recognised at some future date, it may also be "backdated". In a strict legalistic sense, one could argue that no part of Israel yet formally existed at the time in November 1948, and its existence from 14 May 1948 was only formally recognised in 1949. There is no policy provision for a "Nazareth (now Israel)" formulation. Wikipedia policy is quite clear, and despite some vexatiously pettifogging interpretations of policy, Nazareth, Israel is the only available solution. Edwardx (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, I saw a string of edits saying "Nazareth, Israel" and thought it was settled, since I didn't think Edwardx would have posted contentious content before this RfC ended. I can see now the issue is still up in the air, given your comment above and the one below. I would ask all editors not to post contentious edits until this RfC has been concluded. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Tenebrae, I was merely returning it to what was your most recent version at that time, which was, until you changed your mind again today, "Nazareth, Israel". I was not adding "contentious content". Edwardx (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Edwardx: You are mistaken on Tenebrae changing their mind today as if you see this edit from the talk page you will see that they already regarded the location as contentious and as others including myself also did I changed it and mentioned "per talk" in the edit summary but you reverted it citing the Israeli Declaration of Independence so it was not you just "merely returning it" as you disputed international law regarding the state being recognized and you still have not elaborated on this per Oncenawhile asking above. Naue7 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Naue7, it was the article page edits by Tenebrae that I was referring to. I have replied to Oncenawhile above. Edwardx (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
@Edwardx: I know you were referring to that but as Tenebrae mentioned above they had the issue with (now Israel) being included and that was what they last changed in regards to the location by removing (now) and thought that the location had been resolved as Israel had been added again. This was not the case as reading over the talk page there was still an issue with this so I changed it. Nazareth, Israel is not "the only available solution" as a city can be stateless like in ancient times or with indigenous people as with the page for Pocahontas. Naue7 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, my experience of biographical articles is that the infobox contains only the name of the country at the time (no "Now in Fooland") and any change of territory is mentioned instead in the text of the article. Secondly, I think the question asked in this RfC is inherently flawed – Hadid was born on 6 November 1948, but the Mandate ended on 14 May 1948, so he can't have been born in Mandatory Palestine as it no longer existed (was the exact date of his birth a relatively recent addition to the article? This is the only explanation I can think of for many of the above comments). The real question is was he born in Israel? Given the nature of the conflict at the time (there weren't any clear borders until the armistice agreements) I think it would be reasonable to say that if he was born in territory controlled by Israeli forces at that stage of the conflict and that eventually became part of the state, he was born in Israel. Number 57 12:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Number 57, could you clarify for other readers whether you believe Nazareth was legally in the State of Israel in November 1948, ideally with a source? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere was "legally" in Israel in November 1948 as it had no defined or recognised borders; the declaration of independence simply stated that a state had been declared in the Mandate territory. However, Israel did exist, and so between 14 May 1948 and the armistice, I think it's fair to say that locations within the former Mandate that were under Israeli control were part of Israel at that time. Number 57 13:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe we could ask an admin who has settled disputes on Palestinian and Israel articles to mediate? They might bring a fresh perspective and be able to put facts in context. Wikipedia is well set up for editors to request third-party mediation. --Tenebrae (talk)
WP:3O is only used for disputes between two people. But if you're looking for an admin who has been attempting to bring an NPOV perspective to this field for many years, then look no further. I have no greater recommendation for my impartiality than the fact that I have been accused of being both anti- and pro-Israel depending on the relative bias of the contributor in question (indeed, it's a badge of pride that my RfA was almost derailed by a canvassing campaign by some pro-Israel editors who didn't like me pointing out that Israeli settlements should not be categorised as "in Israel" amongst other things). Number 57 20:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That would normally be good since you've been a reasonable presence with well-thought-out arguments here. As you've been a part of the discussion already, though, with at least two editors here unsure that Israel existed as a state in November 1948, it probably might be better to have someone from outside. And I want to make a joke about "help broker an accord" but I wonder if that would be too much!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, that can be cleared up easily – Israel definitely existed as a state in November 1948 – it was recognised by several other countries shortly after independence was declared. See International recognition of Israel. Number 57 09:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
From these passages from that article, it certainly sounds as if Israel were a recognized state as of May 1948. Judging by the recognitions given it by the U.S. and even by Iran, and de jure by Russia, it certainly doesn't seem to be in question. Is the answer really that simple?

On 14 May 1948 the State of Israel was established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence. ... On the declaration of independence, a Provisional government of Israel was established; and while military operations were still in progress, the Provisional government was promptly recognised by the United States as the de facto authority of Israel,[2][3] followed by Iran (which had voted against the UN partition plan), Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Romania, and Uruguay. The Soviet Union was the first country to recognise Israel de jure on 17 May 1948....

--Tenebrae (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it is really that simple, but sadly there are many editors in this sphere of Wikipedia who will say the Pope isn't Catholic if it suits their agenda. Number 57 23:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
It was not legally recognized internationally until 1949 by way of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273 and the argument of a few countries recognizing it before this is not sufficient as the UN is the factor here as it does not work that way for the International recognition of the State of Palestine. Naue7 (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Whether it was recognised by the UN or not is not relevant; the question was whether Israel existed in November 1948. If anyone seriously tries to claim that Israel didn't exist at this point, then I think that's a good cue for the closing admin to disregard their arguments. Number 57 18:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is simply unbelievable. Mohamed Hadid describes himself as Palestinian, his daughther says she is "half Palestinian, and proud of it". I guess they should know better than anyone what they are or aren't. So the article should describe him as Palestian. Period. It may add that he has dual Jordanian-US citizenship, but his ethnicity has to be mentioned for the same reason WP always mentions it when the person is Armenian, Jewish or Roma: because, irrespective of whether they have that nationality officitally or it is just an ethnic or cultural allegiance, it is essential to understand who this person is. The attempt to wipe out all references to Palestine can only be understood as ill-intentioned and highly political, and therefore is not acceptable. In itself is constitutes VPs. Please, keep your political agendas outside Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.174.185.156 (talk • contribs) 10:57, February 9, 2016‎

  • Comment Were he a US citizen, his passport would read place of birth Nazareth, Israel. Indeed that is how it reads for all the people affected by all the European border changes. His place of birth should actually say Israel. If you want, MOS would allow (Mandatory Palestine) to be added to show that when he was born that was what is was since it is a historical event. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not pro-israeli or pro-palestinian but this is nonsense. Mohamed Hadid is Palestinian and no one is denying that, BUT he was born in Israel. Wikipedia isn't a place of opinions but a place of facts, and the fact is that he was born in November 1948 in the State of Israel. Therefore, it should say "Nazareth, Israel". This is the kind of stuff i don't like about the English Wikipedia, everything about the information aren't really facts but political opinions. Like i said, Wikipedia is a place of facts, not opinions. Ibeenthere (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Why are you defacing the Mohamed Hadid page?

No one said he was a devout Muslim as I didn't write that, so it had to have been you or someone else. Many muslims drink and don't hide the fact so why are you mocking him? I advise to delete the devout Mus...

Read above Dundun1984 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Dundun1984: Please try very hard not to attack other editors with alleged "advice". Such things are abhorrent. If this requires discussion please take it to the talk page of the article concerned. Play nice or do not play at all. Fiddle Faddle 22:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I am not defacing the page. I am reporting reliable content. Indeed, he is quoted as saying he doesn't drink, and that's what the source says. Nobody is mocking him, his actions or his beliefs. Frankly, I see nothing hypocritical or inconsistent about being a devout teetotaling Muslim and his owning wine, a wine cellar, a vineyard or a winery. If you do your view is far different than mine. Your apprehension is misplaced. There was no irony intended. Mr. Hadid is a cultured man who straddles two worlds. In any event, if this is going to be discussed, you should do it on the article talk page. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I would also say that you don't WP:Own the article or its content. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If you pay attention to the article, you will note that the statements about Mr. Hadid and his religious affiliation are sourced. Farameh, Patrice (1 July 2008). "Hadid's Modern Masterpiece: Mohamed Hadid". Haute Living. Retrieved 20 December 2015. Even though he has never indulged in alcohol in his life, his 5,000-bottle wine cellar is filled with the best French and Californian wines. Not only does his collection consist of a diverse range of premium wines from local vineyards such as Summerland Winery, but it also includes bottles from his very own winery in Beverly Hills. The article also states Mr. Hadid is a devoted father "and devout Muslim that religiously fasts during the holy month of Ramadan." I did not make this stuff up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

Can we please change the value at birth_place to
Nazareth, Palestine
(now Israel)
as this is what happens at other pages like that of Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum 78.146.137.89 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done, for reasons stated in the consensus at the closed, March 10 Request for Comment above. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Mother's name, descent from royalty

I posted the following at User talk:62.64.152.154, to alert him of the discussion since he's new, and I said I'd copy it over in order to centralize it for us and other editors"

Yeah, I see the Instagram now [giving the name Khair Fahoum Daher Hadid, which The Washington Post renders as Khairiah Hadid]. When you add or change information, be sure to put a footnote by it — lessens confusion. And I see we do have two reliable sources, one of which is an Instagram by the subject himself. In instances such as these, where names may be reasonably transliterated different ways and both appear in public sources, I generally put both and cite each, followed by a parenthetical note such as "(sources vary)" or perhaps in this case "(published transliterations from the Arabic vary") — which might be too long for the infobox but is not too long for the article body. Let me know if you need help with that.
One thing, though: We can't use his Instagram post, which is a primary source, to make a claim that he is descended from royalty. That has to come from a reliable secondary source, since exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Are either of these sources good enough? http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1989/07/31/72291/index.htm or http://digital.modernluxury.com/article/The+Radar+People/453793/0/article.html 62.64.152.154 (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Fortune is certainly a reliable source. I'm not familiar with the other one; it appears legitimate, but is it a print publication? Online only? Who publishes it?
Short of having me read through these dense articles, why don't you just insert what you want to say in the article and cite it, and editors can then look at it themselves. Or, if you want to copy-paste here the specific things the articles say, I can give you my input if you want. But it's certainly not required — any of us are free to edit, so long as we follow policies / guidelines. Nice work gathering material quickly, I must say! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Relevant place

This looks like the relevant place to drop these references that were removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hadid, Mohamed (30 May 2016). "Missing my mother today. God bless you Khair Fahoum Daher Hadid..." Instagram. Retrieved 16 June 2016.
  2. ^ Hadid, Mohamed (8 October 2016). "My Great-Grand-Father ( Daher al Omer) ( Google ). the King of Galilee and the Amir of Nazareth. 18 Century Palastine. Great reading". Instagram. Retrieved 9 November 2016.

"These charges include a possible jail sentence."

The charges are what are laid before a trial. The sentence would come after it. It clearly makes no sense to say that the "charges include a possible jail sentence." William Avery (talk) 12:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed. It also seemed a violation of WP:BLPCRIME.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Mohamed Hadid is not Jordan. XenofTheInmortal (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@XenofTheInmortal: What do you mean he is not? His name is not? Of course, as it is Mohamed. If you mean citizenship then please provide a citation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Olympics

He might have attempted to compete in Albertville 1992 but there is absolutely no evidence that he did so. His name simply does not appear in the results of the men's speed skiing demonstration event. This section needs revising Topcardi (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Fiancee "33 years younger"

With all due respect to the excellent editor User:Emir of Wikipedia, I'm unclear as to what is notable about Shiva Safai being "33 years his junior". I do see the Fox News cite brings it up, but what is notable about it? That an older, rich man has a young fiancee? That's not unusual and I'm unclear why it's notable. What is the notability?

In the meantime, I'm going to make a couple of grammatical / MOS edits that do not touch the "33 years" part. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Was just looking at the Fox News article again when I came across this hilarious passage: "He then started tearing up and the rest, honestly, I can’t remember because I was balling."
Man, I hope she meant "bawling"!! --Tenebrae (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: The source at E! states Despite their 33-year age gap the use of the word despite suggests that it is an unexpected thing, but you have mentioned that this is not unusual for older rich men. If this was the only source then I could see a viable reason to remove. The Fox News source prominently mentions it in the headline and has it as talking point. About what you wrote in the edit summary about the cutoff point the Age disparity in sexual relationships#Statistics states that only 1% of married couples of US hetrosexual married couples had the husband 20+ years older than the wife. It is not my suggestion that merely the age difference is enough for it to be notable, but it is worth remembering that the stats do show this to be unusual. I am grateful for you grammatical / MOS edits. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You're a really good editor, and the issue is subjective enough that I won't create an issue over it. I'll just say I do hope you reconsider, since simply because something is statistically unusual — and again, it's not statistically unusual with rich older men — doesn't mean it's notable. Should the Wikipedia article Donald Trump talk about "his 30-year-younger wife" (or whatever the exact number is there)? Honestly, it reads to me like, "Heh, heh! He's got a hot fiancee 33 years younger than he is!" But like I said, I'm leaving it as is.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Fox News is not generally considered a reliable source for BLP subjects -- or in fact for most other subjects. Is "E!" considered significantly more reliable? MPS1992 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
At RSN their was no consensus saying it was not a RS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

(now Israel) vs Israel

Why are writing that it's now Israel. In my opinion it should either be just Nazareth, or mention that it's in Israel like we do normally. I'm pretty sure that at the time of his birth Nazareth had been conquered by Israel and has never been a part of Palestine since he's been born. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Because we are following Wikipedia guidelines as debated at length for two months before editors reached a consensus as detailed in the [[WP:RfC|"Request for Comments"} above in the blue box. Wikipedia operates on consensus based on policies and guidelines, and we ask that you respect that. You can get full background, including much historical analysis, by reading the RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Emir of Wikipedia. It should be "Nazareth, Israel" or just "Nazareth" like in Natalie Portman article (which is just Jerusalem). Sokuya (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been superseded by the closed Request for Comment above. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The RfC reached a botched conclusion. Nazareth surrendered to Israel in July 1948. If Hadid was born there in November, he was born in Israel. Zekelayla (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohamed_Hadid/Archives/2018&oldid=1065779500"