Talk:Tawakkol Karman

This was repeatedly added without citations. This is also a BLP and current event thus it should be cited to be in here. "from arabic WP" doest count because WP doesnt cite itself. That said if its sourced on the arabic WP then that source can be added here.Lihaas (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also per LEAD, summation/paraphrase of article content suffices. we dont need all the details.Lihaas (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's true that Karman's notability arises from her visibility as a leader in Yemen's Arab Spring movement, but it's also noteworthy: "Before the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded, only 12 other women had ever been recipients in over 110 years, and Karman became the first Arab woman and the youngest person ever to become a Nobel Peace Laureate." Placed down in the middle, this part of the lead gets buried. She's always going to be remembered for being the first and one of the youngest. For clarification, other women had been awarded in other categories and so the 12 have to be associated with the Peace Prize. Crtew (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Its placed in the lead, though i personally thik she was well known before the protests, just not to the hordes who came to her know after the nobel (which is mostly a anglopho ne audience as its on the WP in eglish (and had more than 20k page views yest))

Tried changing, see how you like it? If ot we ca review?Lihaas (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right about her being well known well before October 7. How about just half? See what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crtew (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Okay, kept. Cocncluded?Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes and I liked your change beyond first Arab woman to win Peace Prize to include all Nobel Prizes! Crtew (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

some major issues cropped up recently with the removal of sources to add unverifiable sources and whole scale unexplained removals:

1. [1][2][3][4][5] sources are not verifiable
2. [6][7] same ref duplicated without ref name tags in 2 sentences
3. [8][9][10] unexplained
4. [11] Numerous past explanations to SUMMARISE lead not details (see above)
5. [12][13] sourced removal
6. [14][15] unsourced additionsLihaas (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I feel this removes a significant context to the whole issue. Ie- the appeal and reasons thereof ofor the uprisings failure/.success that she is leading (in some way)Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

the tag is unwarranted as it is bound to tilt towards 2011 as thats when she gained intl prominence. still though the NGO work is prominently displayed.Lihaas (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Is she really a politician? I can find references to back that label up, but by common sense definition, I haven't seen any references yet that show her running for office or directly influencing policy. She is an activist in that she's a member of an opposition party, a leader of protests, and an influential voice. I can't find anymore than that. It seems like Wikipedia is replicating errors from outside by mislabeling her. I would propose changing "politician" to "political and human rights activist". Can anybody find references that show more involvement? Crtew (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Politician precludes being a member of a political party. As opposed to an NGO (which would be okay if she was only at Wome's Jouralists... ad not al Islah)...bearing in mind too that all politicians are not elected ecessarily.Lihaas (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Moved some of the contextual description of what had happened between January and October to the 2011 Yemen Protests page per my fellow Wikipedian's suggestion.Crtew (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

An image used in this article, File:Tawakkul Karman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The image may qualify for fair-use exemption. But this should be done soon, as we can't host a copyvio on Commons for much longer time. --Túrelio (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed people adding al-Mekhlaf to the entry. Are they adding that name because she was from Mekhlaf, Yemen? Acmaxey (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

id imagine, but it needs a sourceLihaas (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

She is from Shara'b As Salam District https://www.tawakkolkarman.net/en/about SharabSalam (talk) 20:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Let's make sure we keep the credit: Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press. I was watching YouTube videos about Karman at the United Nations and contacted the reporter. Matthew uploaded the two photos from the protest right away. You can see above how we struggled to get a photo that was public domain. Let's make sure we credit our photographers!Crtew (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

we do that on the photos and in Commons not on articlwe captions as this is not a media outletLihaas (talk) 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I met her at Clinton Global Initiative in New York. I have moved the article to her preferred spelling. Many reliable sources get it wrong (perhaps even a majority?) but Wikipedia's policy is not "verifiability, not truth" in a case like this, because it's better to get it right!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

When did we start accepting personal anecdotes about something a person says they were told by the subject as reliable? Besides, doesn't WP:COMMONNAME say we should use the most commonly used name, even if it is technically incorrect? Is the previous spelling even technically wrong?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The majority of appearances in print are Tawakkol and its closer variation, but more telling is the spelling of her own name in signed editorials, which is this version. Crtew (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The old "Tawakel" spelling in Wikipedia originated closer to this article's creation and before she had won the Nobel. Earlier articles about her have a greater number of spelling variations. This was something that always needed time to shake out and for a stable spelling to appear. I think this change in spelling is right on target. Crtew (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Checked the sources after seeing your comment and see this is apparently the common spelling. Jimbo seemed to be saying that we should disregard WP:COMMONNAME on the basis of nothing more than a personal anecdote about what the subject told him, which would be clearly inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Move back. Violation of WP:NOR and WP:COMMONNAME.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Müdigkeit, have you look at her signed articles and at the enormous amount of mentions that are spelled in this way? If it passes the common name policy, then the OR policy is irrelevant. Crtew (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is an Arabic name that is being transliterated, so there is no definitive "correct" version of the name in English. In that context, the subject's expressed preference is entitled to substantial weight, especially when that version is also used by multiple other sources. As I've explained at User talk:Jimbo Wales, in this context any concern about "original research" is totally unpersuasive.

To move the article back to its former title, or to any other title, at this point would damage the reputation of the project by making us look like schmendricks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Not just look like them, but quack like them. What? That's not schmenducks?

Thanks for your good sense, NYBrad. Yopienso (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Exactly Newyorkbrad. This is why the editors of the article have been citing the variations of her name as it appeared transliterated in the press throughout the whole process. It is part of the "also known as" convention, but in this case, the anglicized form was documented. Even in the article as it appeared yesterday, there were occurrences with cited sources of her name spelled in the way it has now been changed. Crtew (talk) 00:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

We now have two people who want to use an edit here from Jimmy Wales as reference for the name change in the article. That goes against WP:V and creates a circular reference. If people want to do this, I have no objection to placing a reference to the CNBC article where you have been placing the reference. It's external and so on. However, I'm not going to do it because, this article is about Karman and not about Jimmy Wales. The name change makes sense without Wales' action because of Wikipedia's policy about the "Common Name" and there was no need to resort to such special reasons. However, Wales never edited her article prior to yesterday. So just because he put the wrong reason down and it becomes a news event, is that reason enough to source the reasoning behind her name being spelled differently? It's a reference with an axe to grind by a bunch of people who have never edited or participated in this article so far. And by the way, there is only one article at this time about this situation, which makes one question the significance of the event. Crtew (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Then I'd say you don't have a consensus. If you read my edit summary, Chicago style lets you say anything pertinent, not necessarily only reference RSs ("Reference" is a verb.) you would see there's no "circular reference" because there's no reference at all. Please do either refer to the CNBC article or reinsert what you deleted, with a {{#tag}} instead of a standard ref number, if that makes you feel better. (You do understand Chicago style notes?) Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, btw, for assuming good faith! Why don't you want use the CNBC article? I do understand Chicago style. Crtew (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I said, "Please do either refer to the CNBC article or . . ." I'm perfectly fine with either the CNBC article or a {{#tag}}. The reasons for including the ref or note are twofold: 1. There's a redirect right at the top of the page that might prompt a question in the user's mind. 2. This (with the similiar Will.i.am question) has turned into a "Supreme Court case"--in other words, a possible watershed and at minimum a controversy over taking a person's word for themselves wrt their BLP. Therefore, a record here is appropriate. We see Jimbo, who created this project, using common sense and courtesy, while some other editors are being punctilious little wiki-lawyers. All this matters to the future of the endeavor. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't you start an essay and move a copy of what you want there? My overall concern is that this article remain focused on Tawakkol Karman. Her case was the least interesting because it's a transliteration and subjective. Will.i.am is more interesting.Crtew (talk) 04:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Essay? All I want is a restoration of the first footnote as here, or a ref to the CNBC article, or an endnote including the contents of the footnote you deleted. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yopienso, how's this change? See first fn. Crtew (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Imho, I think that's great! Thanks for being so friendly. Yopienso (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't we also include the Turkish version of her name, "Tevekkül Karman", in the introduction? ([16][17][18][19]).Turco85 (Talk) 18:21, 16 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I AM SHOCKED TBH WHERE IS THAT INFO COMING FROM SHE IS FROM SHARA'B TRIBE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TURKEY. SharabSalam (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

  This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Southern Indiana supported by WikiProject Journalism and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply