Talk:Mudar Zahran

Speedy deletion declined

 Candidates for speedy deletion patroller --- Kendrick7, I declined your speedy deletion request of this article with no prejudice against its deletion through WP:AfD if its notability is in doubt because A7 does not applies to articles with assertion of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps all this article really needs is a rewrite. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

With some independent reliable sources to help establish notability. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Certainly a youtube video, and an article in an Israeli newspaper* which at some point has employed him, aren't the kinds of things we should be falling back on for nearly 1/3 of our sourcing. Most of the rest just note him for a WP:BLP1E, in that he was tried and convicted in absentia for insulting the Jordanian monarch. I suppose one longform article in the Times of Israel might make someone notable, although again it's predicated on, basically: hey, here's an ex-pat Jordanian who doesn't like his former king. If not being fond of your government made every expatriate notable, whatever the *propaganda value might be to neighboring states, we could probably bang out quite a few BLPs on such a basis. But if the article gave some of that as context, I wouldn't complain. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:20, 24 July 2015‎ (UTC)

I declined the speedy because of the assertion of notability of the article and that does not mean that the article will meet our primary inclusion criteria. If you doubt its notability, feel free to take it to WP:AfD. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 06:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I call in you here to be fair and keep the Wikipedia standards, part about him owing money came from tabloids and even the additional references makeandtoss used were tabloids which is against Wikipedia rules in the biography of a living person, also you could say he is a politician or an political figure why does Malik Shabazz inisist he is a writer, sorry guys one of the editors is a Jordanian and his edits are all pro regime's story and I call on this page to be looked at by other editors Jordanianfacts (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Content dispute

@Headhitter: The article got protected right after the revert, anyway I apologize, here's a fresh start. Now tell me, what do you think about the rest of the content? --Makeandtoss (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Dispute sent to BLP noticeboard.

A dispute here was reported at WP:COIN, but this is more of a biography issue than a conflict of interest issue. So it's been sent to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive231#Mudar Zahran. John Nagle (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Issue

@Hopeandreason: Thank you for giving me an essay that you have not read yourself!! Zahran is a public figure and according to the public figure section of the "BLP guidelines" it says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ". Not only have you removed that but also removed the references I have added which constitutes to clear vandalism.Makeandtoss (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Revert removal of sourced content, that doesn't violate any wikipedia guidelines. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed the sources stated what Makeandtoss said, so there is no BLP concern over the sources. Put 'em back in. KoshVorlon 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• I disagree - yes there are sources but are they the high-quality reliable sources that biographies should be based on? Even if they are, I seriously question whether we should be including allegations that arose from activist's facebook pages in a BLP. Similarly, why include information about his actions as "worse than a drunkards"? Remember that if in doubt BLP tells us to leave it out. So - are there better sources available or not? SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
• The three sources on Mossad thing, do not exclusively say that this claim was made by facebook activists. "وذكر الموقع أن زهران يقيم في لندن وهو يعتبر نفسه زعيما فلسطينيا معارضا في المهجر بينما يعده الفلسطينيون عميلا للموساد ." this sentence in second source Al-Madenah News here. Which translates to "Zahran lives in London and considers himself a leader of Palestinian opposition, however, Palestinians consider him a Mossad agent". Clear and straightforward sentence, use google translate or consult any Arabic speaking wikipedia editor. About his actions being labelled as "worse than a drunkards" by his father, this is supported by several sources, most notably Ammon News; a well respected, private and reliable news agency. I provided all sources necessary, theres absolutely no doubt about that. Smartse please be reminded that you didn't even bother to check what you reverted, I am pointing out to how you reverted me from adding two other sources to content not related to these two points.

Furthermore, BLP guidelines" it says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. ".Makeandtoss (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Uh, the sources were from http://www.alqalahnews.com/ and http://www.ammonnews.net/, both of which appear reliable (they're definetly not blogs). Do you have evidence or consensus that shows otherwise ? KoshVorlon 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please add an edit request after there is consensus for the change. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just pinged Meno25 to come and take a look, he's a sysop who can speak , read and write arabic to check the sources, if they're reliable, there's no reason to exclude, if they're found to be tabloidish or not reliable, well, then they can't be in. KoshVorlon 18:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The most important part of BLP is that we get it right and it is better to err on the side of caution. For BLPs related to the Arab-Israeli conflict that applies even more so, particularly when as in this case the subject has raised concerns about the content. I agree that based on this source some mention of the 2010 Op-ed should be included but it is unneccessary to add insulting opinions to the article whether they can be sourced or not. A simple summary of the source would suffice. I should also note that neither of the English Ammon News articles mention the comparison to a drunkard. Thank you for the translation - that's rather different from what google gave me. I still think that this accusation is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and that those sources are insufficient for claiming he is a Mossad agent as they barely discuss it - i.e. quoting your part of BLP - it is not "well documented". And I did check what I reverted yesterday (and a few weeks ago). Apologies for not responding to your query yesterday. SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You agree with that source which happens to be the only English source? Its the same newspaper, but one in English and one in Arabic. You can't say the Arabic one isn't reliable and the English one is!! Please be aware that for each content, I added 3 inline citations. Which means that you shouldn't expect the drunkard content to be in other references. Here are the 'drunkard' references, as placed before in the article. . Google translates it as 'owner of the wine'.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I agree with the source, I said that based on the source I agree that some mention of it can be included in the article. SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Translation of relevant parts from Arabic sources:

• almadenahnews:

بينما يعده الفلسطينيون عميلا للموساد .

ويزور المذكور إسرائيل وتقول تقارير إنه أحد عملائها في أوروبا .

...while Palestinians consider him a Mossad agent.

And he visits Israel and some reports say that he is one of Isreal's agents in Europe.

• alqalahnews:

ويقيم المعارض مضر في لندن ويعتبره الفلسطينيين هناك بانه عميل الموساد بحسب صفحات نشطاء على الفيسبوك.

And the opponent Mudar lives in London and Palestinians there consider him a Mossad agent according to some activists pages on Facebook.

However, I do agree with Smartse here that this accusation is exceptional and that those sources are insufficient for claiming he is a Mossad agent, so, I advise against adding such a claim to the article.

I can't find anything in the given Arabic sources [2] [3] [4] that he was described as a drunkard by his father. The only reference to wine in the text is "لم يقله مالك في الخمر" (The word خمر is Arabic for wine) which can be translated as "...what Malik didn't say about drinking wine". This is a famous Arabic expression (meaning in context that Mudar criticized Jordan very aggressively). Note that the Arabic word "مالك" here is the name of a person but it can also mean "an owner of" which explains why Google machine translation incorrectly translated the sentence as "owner of the wine". This shows that it is dangerous to rely on machine translation in such a sensitive BLP issue. For the record, I didn't review English sources. --Meno25 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify the misunderstanding; the content was not implying he was a Mossad agent, rather, showing what Palestinians think of him... I did not know about that Arabic expression, so that can go, about the wine.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation Meno25. SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Content under consideration

For convenience, add comments on disputed paragraphs here:

• "Palestinian activists through Facebook and other media outlets have accused him of being a Mossad agent in Europe.

There's nothing wrong with this, concerning translation. Paragraph talks about what Palestinians think of him, doesn't deal with him being a Mossad agent as fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still gossip though - exactly what BLP tells us not to include: WP:BLPGOSSIP. Why should we repeat anonymous accusations that have been given so little coverage? SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPGOSSIP before sending it to me. That section of the essay is speaking about reliability of the sources, Ammon News alone is reliable enough.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That's part of a policy not an essay and it is most definitely not just a case of whether a source is reliable. Sources can be reliable for one thing and not for another. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Its not gossip. Its what they think, its their opinion.Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

That's a textbook definition of gossip - a rumour. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPGOSSIP "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." We are not repeating, sources are reliable, material is not being presented as fact and is very relevant.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• "In 2010, Zahran wrote an article in the Jerusalem Post that described Jordan as an apartheid state which drew huge criticism by Jordanians and Palestinians alike. Shortly after the article was published, Mudar sent a letter of apology to Jordanians and Palestinians through Ammon News after his father Adnan Zahran threatened to cut off relations if the former wrote anything else and considered Mudar's continuation of writing as "ingratitude" on a personal level against his father, and an "ungratefulness" towards the country". The father described Mudar's writings as "far from truth and reality".

I don't see anything in this google translation which looks like it might support "drew huge criticism by Jordanians and Palestinians alike". Can you please quote the part of the source you think supports it so it can be translated properly? SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Before writing about the apology we should discuss the points he raised in the op-ed. This source is a good summary. SmartSE (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The apology was for the main point, which is calling Jordan an apartheid state, as shown in the title of this source.

Here's the statement in Mashaheer "واستفزّ الفيديو المنشور عدد كبير من المتابعين ممن وصفوا "زهران" بالعميل الإسرائيلي وأطلق عدد من النشطاء حملة ضد المعارض الاردني الذي يدّعي أنه يطالب بحقوق الفلسطينيين في الأردن ."

Translates to "The video provoke a large number of followers, and activists launched a campaign against the Jordanian opposition who claims to support the rights of the Palestinians in Jordan"Makeandtoss (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok so it clearly doesn't support the proposed "huge criticism" then. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The source after it does, which stated "An uproar of criticism against Mudar Zahran's op-ed entitled "Jordan, Dr. Peace and Mr. Apartheid" published in the Israeli "Jerusalem Post" newspaper on Sunday led the writer to contact 'Ammon News' editor-in-chief to relay his "apologies" to the Jordanian people over claims he made in the op-ed describing Jordan as an apartheid state." hereMakeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

So again, that content isn't supported by the sources. It could though be rephrased as: according to Ammon News there was an "uproar of criticism". SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean not supported by sources?!? Even his father said 'it pained me as it has pained 6 million Jordanians'. How about we also write according to "Times of Israel", Mudar Zahran is born in 1973 ?!?!Makeandtoss (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• The same year, after Mudar appeared on Al Jazeera talk show The Opposite Direction, his father Adnan sent out a public letter announcing that he officially cut relations with his son. The father said that his son was in no position to speak on behalf of Palestinians and Jordanians. He went further, calling on Jordanians to be aware of "the advocates of incitement and hatred"."

Removed 'drunkard' claim.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

This cites two copies of the same letter so it's essentially one source and I don't see anything that links it to an appearance on Al Jazeera. More problematic though is that without any commentary on the letter it is very difficult to determine WP:WEIGHT - why should we include the specific text and quote? Are there any articles that discuss the letter and which might help determine weight? SmartSE (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"اكتب لك هذه السطور وانا في الغربة خارج الوطن بمصر العربية ، وقد راعني كما راع ستة ملايين أردني رؤيتك على برنامج الاتجاه المعاكس تقول في وطنك ما لم يقله مالك في الخمر.

". First sentence of the letter says " I write you this when I am outside the nation in the Arab Egypt, it has pained me as it has pained 6 million Jordanians seeing you on The Opposite Direction tv show saying about your country what Malik didn't say about drinking wine". Why wouldn't we include it? Its sourced, interesting and relevant. Weight? Its not an opinion, its fact. The father sent him that letter, as shown by the several sources, there's no doubt in that.Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah now I see about the opposite direction. My point is though - why should we care about what his father said? Are there sources discussing the letter, equivalent to this discussion of the op-ed? At present, the weight of the letter isn't demonstrated and unless there are other sources it should be left out. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we care about what his father said? It won't be left out. Completely sourced and here's are more. [5], [6], [7].Makeandtoss (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The first two are just more copies of the same letter and the third link doesn't work for me. If you want to include it, the burden is on you to demonstrate that his father's opinions are noteworthy, which the letter does not do by itself. SmartSE (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It was noteworthy enough to be mentioned on 6 of Jordan's most popular news sites.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, WP:NNC says Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article, and that due weight and content policies apply. His father said this and that is a fact, not an opinion or a view point.Makeandtoss (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not any closer to reaching consensus so I've asked if some other experienced editors can voice their opinions. SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be reasonable, I already showed you how the Mossad claim was not only made by Facebook activists. There's no need to mention that again, maybe this is why we are going round in circles.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, "Even his father said 'it pained me as it has pained 6 million Jordanians'" hardly means that 6 million Jordanians were in fact pained. More importantly, what the father said really isn't automatically relevant unless, for instance, it's reliably (and maybe widely) reported on--if I understand this correctly, the father wrote a letter which was printed on two websites, and that's primary. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

No body said 6 million Jordanians were pained, but it does support the claim of 'uproar of criticism' or 'huge criticism'. It is widely reported on. Primary or not primary, how does that prevent us from quoting what his father thinks of his political agenda? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't violate wikipedia guidelines nor does it have a valid argument against its inclusion, stalling this is useless.Makeandtoss (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:IMPARTIAL: "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Headhitter (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That guideline is talking about articles on arguments, not a paragraph in a BLP.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL talks about arguments in articles, not just articles on arguments. Headhitter (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The letter is not engaged in a heated dispute. This guy showed up on tv and later the father 'scolded' him through a public letter, Mudar did not issue any replies to his father.·Makeandtoss (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming you all trying to stall this as much as possible until another edit war sets in.Makeandtoss (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be soon restoring completely sourced content that doesn't violate Wikipedia guidelines .Makeandtoss (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

How about you start debating so that we can reach a consensus? Or would you just want to stall? @Smartse:. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I've already explained at length what the problems are with this content and nobody but you thinks that it is ok to include. The burden is on you to show that it can be properly sourced, which I think we have determined it can't be. SmartSE (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse: OFCOURSE because I am not the one who let all the meatpuppets flock to the article on December 1st like what this fella over here did [8]. Please read the Wikipedia policies before you refer them to me, WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.". For each paragraph there are three sources by reliable news agencies like Ammon News. Ridiculous.Makeandtoss (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't consider ensuring that content on living people is well-sourced is ridiculous. The subject wouldn't feel the need to encourage meatpuppetry if there were no problems with the content. "

Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups". SmartSE (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse: Your behaviour is ridiculous, and is further supported by the fact that you have AGAIN reverted a completely sourced statement just now. Its neither unsourced or poorly sourced, why do you think you own Wikipedia?Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

No - we worked out above that there was absolutely no justification for "huge criticism" based on the sources and I have repeatedly tried to help find a compromise but you appear unwilling to do so. I don't understand how you still don't get the fact that BLP content is held to a higher standard than other content and we have to get it right. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Smartse: Oh my god. Are you sure you know what uproar means?! What do you mean I am not compromising, I might change text according to suggestions, but I won't be surrendering completely sourced content.Makeandtoss (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: @Neutron: - you opined at the previous BLPN discussion about some of this content under discussion. Could you take another look? The content proposed is by the bullet points above. SmartSE (talk) 12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

References

RFC: content dispute

The following discussion 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.

---

Some users have been removing perfectly sourced content using BLP guidelines as excuse, but that argument is rather invalid. Or is it? Makeandtoss (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Please provide links to the edits you are referring to. This will make it easier for other users to respond and discuss the RfC. Meatsgains (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: [9] and [10]. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The controversial information in question should be broken down and explained in this RfC. I haven't taken the time to go through each claim to determine whether or not it is properly cited in reliable sources but what I did notice is that some of the information is just accusatory, which should not be added to a BLP. If we want a thorough discussion on this, you'll need to restructure the RfC. Meatsgains (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Sorry, I am not following... Please clarify what do you want me to do? Makeandtoss (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest noting (above) the controversial information, provide RS that support the content, and arguments users have given either for or against its inclusion. That way other editors can easily read through and respond. Meatsgains (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Any links to the edits and reliable sources? Meatsgains (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: [11], [12], [13] [14] Makeandtoss (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This article specifically clarifies how Jordanians, not Jordanian state criticized Mudar. [15]. It says "An uproar of criticism against Mudar Zahran's op-ed entitled "Jordan, Dr. Peace and Mr. Apartheid" published in the Israeli "Jerusalem Post" newspaper on Sunday led the writer to contact 'Ammon News' editor-in-chief to relay his "apologies" to the Jordanian people over claims he made in the op-ed describing Jordan as an "apartheid state" in its treatment of Jordanians of Palestinian heritage." This is very clear, [16], this edit over here, is not justified, not even to TINIEST bit. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains:

• The content relating to his father was removed for "no consensus".
• The Muslim Brotherhood content was literally removed for no reason. Both content are perfectly sourced from perfectly reliable sources, most notably Ammon News.
• Mossad content is not accusatory it just states public opinion.Makeandtoss (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Makeandtoss (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide diffs to figure out what's at issue. Is this change a problem? The facebook letter removed here cites three sources which fed through google translate for what that's worth look like 1, 2 and 3. 1 and 2 seem the same to me, but it does support the claim I think. I think the issue is whether those are WP:RS though, that's a separate issue. Are there more neutral sources about it as the pages aren't exactly neutral? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

This change is very problematic, directly contradicts with source. The claim is verifiable, given that they have a screenshot. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:16, 6 January 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.

"Influence" section

A new editor has been adding a section that allegedly demonstrates Zahran's influence. Unfortunately, at least one of the three sources, United with Israel, is an advocacy group and not a reliable source for facts. I don't understand Arabic and cannot opine about this source.

In addition to the unreliability of the source, a portion of the new section is unsourced.

Finally, the section and its title violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. Specifically, it is synthesis, in which the editor is combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Copying to talk page for discussion, per WP:PRESERVE

Influence

In 2011, the pro-Jordanian government writer, Nahid Hattar, called for a "mother of all protests" against both the Israeli and American embassies, Zahran publicly addressed Jordanians telling them not to protest against either embassies adding that "our problem is with the Hashemites and not the Israelis". On this, Jordanian news website, Al-Sawt, commented: who will win the street, Zahran or Hattar. Nonetheless, as a result of Zahran's call, the Washington Post reported less than 200 people showed up for the protests. Another exhibit of Zahran's influence over the Jordanian public came On 16 September 2015, when the Jordanian government's media openly called for destruction of the Israeli embassy in Jordan, and the Muslim brotherhood called for "mega protests" against Israel, according to Jerusalem Online news agency, Zahran addressed the Jordanian public with a video published on YouTube, in which he warned them not to go. The video was watched by a few thousands the night before the protests and as an outcome the next morning, and as a result less than 200 protested before the Israeli embassy verses the usual tens of thousands. References

-- Kendrick7^talk 06:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Lol, this is literally one of the most extraordinary claims one can ever read. This guy, posts a youtube video urging people not to protest against Israel, and everyone complies?! Why would they? Who is he? Anyway, slightly irrelevant. Here's proof that this is paid writing, literally paid. All Jerusalem online posts on Mudar Zahran is written by Rachel Avraham, check out her writings on him here; [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. As you can obviously see, they are filled with extraordinary claims. Quite honestly, Mudar recieves alot of attention from Rachel Avraham. One might woner why! One last thing I would like to point out is that User:GirlForTruth is a sock puppet of the blocked IP 82.3.238.241. The way of talking in diffs are very similar, I have already tried to file an investigation a while ago. But there were too few diffs. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It sucks. Keep it out of the article. Zero^talk 12:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors must end the mess that n this article

1--makeandtoss has seriously filled the articles with stories tarnishing the person and all his sources were tabloids especially about zahran owing money, the sources he used were a tabloid's joke 2-looking at history I see a very significant part called zahran influence was dekteted severalbfines by makeandtoss despite coming form a well known site that is the second most read in Israel and in one of his edits makeandtoss even calls Israeli media a name that shows bias, why do you delete the man's documented influence stories and keep bad stories about his father and then him owing money from tabloid which is against Wikipedia rules on biographies of living persons? Jordanianfacts (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2017

Add "Southern New Hampshire University alumni" to the categories. 2603:3005:D04:5C00:315D:65B2:DB82:7864 (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 21:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

opinion articles

@MShabazz: where does it say that opinion articles are not reliable sources? I presented the material as a quote which is obviously presented as opinion rather than fact. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Makeandtoss. Please see WP:RSOPINION: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. ... A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable."

I'll try to look for Glick's original column so we can cite it. If Tal Schneider expressed an opnion in his column, that too can be cited and attributed to him. But an opinion column can't be cited as a source of facts. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's what I found. Glick wrote a column about Zahran (whom she called a "Jordanian ex-patriot" instead of an expatriate) in the Jerusalem Post on March 31, 2017. On September 26, 2017, she wrote about her subsequent experiences in a long Facebook post. That post was cited on September 27 at Elder of Ziyon. On October 8, Tal Schneider wrote his column for Globes, an Israeli business newspaper. It was republished by the Jerusalem Post.

We're dealing with a WP:BLP here, and a Facebook post—even by a well-known opinion columnist—may not pass muster as a reliable source. The other sources are a blog post—almost never a reliable source—and an opinion column by a third party (Schneider). The information about Zahran and what one prominent Israeli conservative has to say about him is valuable, but I think a trip to WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N is probably appropriate before we put the material back into the article without solid reliable sources. I hope you agree that it would be helpful to have a consensus at a noticeboard that supports its inclusion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz:

"A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion."

from WP:RSOPINION which is clearly the case here when I completely attributed all the information as opinions. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Please review your changes. You cited the Schneider column as a source, but wrote "according to Glick". An opinion column by Tal Schneider can only be used as a source for his opinion, just as an opinion column by Caroline Glick can only be used as a source for her opinion. And an opinion column can't be used as a source for facts ("Her sentiment was shared by other Israeli right-wing writers and publications"). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: what changes do you suggest then? Makeandtoss (talk) 05:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the best summary (Carolyn Glick's Facebook post) probably isn't a reliable source because it's self-published and we want to use it as a source for a BLP about somebody else (see WP:SPS). However, since her Facebook post was summarized and quoted in a published source (the opinion column that ran in Globes and the Jerusalem Post), we may be able to argue that it's acceptable. Given that this is a BLP, the best course may be to ask other editors at WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N what they think. Glick is a very influential columnist, her opinion carries a lot of weight in some quarters, and it would be a shame not to be able to include her perspective here simply because she posted it on Facebook instead of in her Jerusalem Post column. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Could you initiate that discussion on any of these two forums since I am not exactly sure what you're objecting to, or how to phrase it? Makeandtoss (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'll start a discussion later this week. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

FWIW (posted in BLP/n too) - Tal Schnieder is a she - and she is one of Israel's leading political analysts/commentators (mainly in Hebrew) - probably moreso than Glick (who does quite a bit of English). My reading of the original Hebrew piece is that it is news coverage (a feature) and not an opinion, see [24]. Also some coverage in Maariv - [25] (Aryeh Eldad). The Hebrew political commentary in Israel usually ignores the English side (e.g. JPost or American papers such as Forward, Tablet, Jewish Press, etc. Not an issue with Haaretz as it is mainly a Hebrew->English translation in any event), which is probably why JPost was tickled into republishing Schnieder (not as an opinion (which is marked both in Globes and JPost as such) - but as an article with a Globes attribution) as she referred to Glick.Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Thank you for the info as the Globes site doesn't load for me. Does the larger Hebrew version of the article contain more information that might be added here? And do you have any objections against this edit [26]? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I would frame it different. Some on the Israeli right have been pinning some hopes that Zahran as the "Jordanian opposition leader" would be amenable, should he topple the king, to revive the "Jordanian Option" [27] (or to be precise - Jordan as the Palestinian state whether with or without the West Bank (or various states of control over it or parts of it). However they realized their initial perception of Zahran was a bit too lofty. Note that the "Jordanian option" is a recurring topic - not tied to Zahran in particular, in regards to hypothetical lasting (or interim) settlements regarding the West Bank population.Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: A "Jordanian option" requires a Jordanian element thats why it was a bit too lofty; it was a first. No sane Jordanian would support such an option, let alone the entire population like how this "writer" claims. Anyway I will let @Malik Shabazz: check the supposedly featured original article for himself before restoring the content. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Post 1988 (when this was more mainstream) this possibility is entertained in certain circles in the medium to long term (I do not think anyone sees this as on the table at the moment) with most schemes requiring geopolitical or a very large political change in Jordan, as well as possibly other conditions. Zahran did give an Interview on how to set up Palestine in Jordan to Mida in 2014 [28] (in which he advocates a Palesstinian takeover of Jordan with Israeli assistance - reversing course from the Israeli assistance to the Hashemites). The coverage in 2017 was around him being invited to a smallish fringey conference exploring the option in Jerusalem. I would not say this is insane, as I never say never, but there ummm... many moving parts.Icewhiz (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: the far-right plan assumes Palesinians want to take over Jordan, assume that the to be Palestinian neighbor be peaceful, assume that Jordanians that make the bulk of the professional security apparatus would agree to this farce. In reality: Jordanian Palestinians are loyal to the throne (even the vocal Islamists are represented in the parliament), a Palestinian state in Jordan would still want to destroy Israel, and the security apparatus would never agree. No Jordanian or Palestinian eould agree to such a farce because it is what it is, a farce. Not really the best place to discuss this so I will end it here. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Many moving parts (and many different varieties and theories). I am not sure this is far right in Israeli discourse - it is right wing post 93 - and is on the fringe mainly due to feasability. Zahran's did express support for this (e.g in his interview to Mida).Icewhiz (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Icewhiz, for correcting my assumption that Schneider was a man and for the links to Hebrew sources. Glick is U.S.-born and as far as I know, her column is only published in English. The Jerusalem Post indicated "Comment" at the top of Schneider's column, and it's in the URL as well (www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Comment-The-downfall-of-the-Jordanian-option-506954), so I took their word that it was an opinion column.

Makeandtoss, I'm very pressed for time but I'll review everything this week or weekend and post some proposed language, okay? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Sure. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: waiting... Makeandtoss (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I will give you three more days before restoring. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, I apologize for not getting to this. I've been very busy with deadlines at work and haven't had much time to spend adding content. Maybe you should restore this until I can spend time on it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 September 2018

In September 2018, Mudar Zahran spoke at an event organized by the Jewish settler group called Friends of Judea and Samaria at the EU Parliament in Brussels. http://www.judeanrose.com/2018/09/09/mudar-zahran-plays-hide-israeli-flag/ 207.8.221.253 (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Mudar Zahran has claimed that the king of Jordan wants to kill his family. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/22623 routstyes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.244.62 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes and I claim Obama has threatened my family. We can add what you want to add, but it will just be another humorous claim in an already interesting biography. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

In 2017, the New York-based Gatestone Institute distanced itself from Mudar Zahran. Important piece of information coming from a think-tank that used to publish some of his stuff. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11145/notice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.49.75 (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)