Talk:Hanajira
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Al Ameer son in topic Chairman Arafat/verification needed issues
 | A fact from Hanajira appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 September 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Chairman Arafat/verification needed issues
edit1) When the source states "chairman Arafat" it's obviously talking about his chairmanship of the PLO, not the Palestinian Authority. See Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Only the President/Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority appoints ministers. Arafat was all three (chairman, prime minister, president) at that time. Stating "Palestinian President Yasser Arafat" is a neutral way to simplify the wording and make it more accurate, since the chairman of the PLO doesn't have the official powers to appoint ministers in the PA. The sentence in its current form doesn't make sense. There's no controversy here and we're not even calling him President of Palestine. I'm leaning to restore the original wording. --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- There are three alternatives I can think of that won't conflict with the RS the way calling Arafat "President" would: 1. "...was appointed the Minister of Justice by Chairman Yasser Arafat in the 1990s." 2. "...was appointed the Minister of Justice in the 1990s by then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat." 3. "...was appointed the Minister of Justice in the Palestinian Authority by Yasser Arafat in the 1990s."—Biosketch (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see the problem with using "president". How does it conflict with the RS? It is a plain fact that Arafat was the President at the time (and the Prime Minister and PLO Chairman). If you go to any noticeboard, or RfC and to another admin besides myself, I guarantee they will find no problem with using President. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source refers to Arafat as "Chairman," hence that's the terminology the article should be adopting. If "Chairman" could be perceived as misleading, then the article should just refer to Arafat by name alone. An RfC would support simply "Yasser Arafat" because MOS:HONORIFIC is what's relevant in this situation. Personally I think the third formulation above is the clearest and most consistent with the source without getting into the business of how to refer to Arafat in the context of this article.—Biosketch (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't really apply here since President isn't an unnecessary honorific. See Occupation titles section from the same guideline page. The third alternative begs the unknowing reader's question who is this Yasser Arafat to appoint ministers? This is becoming funny to me because it's such a small and uncontroversial issue. I have to ask again, why does it matter if we use President? We would say Israeli President if it was Shimon Peres, French President if it was Hollande or South African President if was Zuma, why does it matter if we call a spade a spade? No source in the world denies Arafat was President in the 1990s (post-1993). --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Occupation titles" is a guideline for when to capitalize the first letters in titles like "president" and "prime minister." It isn't relevant to this discussion. In the third proposed formula above, "Yasser Arafat" can be wikilinked and readers who've never heard of him before'll be able to click on his name and read all they want about him. Now, for the third time, the reason this article can't use "President" is because the RS that's relied on extensively throughout this article uses "Chairman." Wikipedia content is supposed to be generated by reliable sources pertinent to the topic of an article.—Biosketch (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns about reflecting what the RS says, but in this case it's an irrelevant matter. This source just happened to use "chairman" Yasser Arafat, instead of his other main titles, but we're more than free to use the more relevant title ("President") to briefly describe who Arafat is. If we were talking about Sheikh Freih being assigned a position in the PLO then we would use "Chairman". In all of the articles I've edited that have gotten GA or peer reviews, I was always asked to use a word to describe a person's job occupation i.e. Biblical scholar Edward Robinson or Israeli historian Benny Morris or Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki and so on. This case is no different. Keep in mind that this is not a case where we're contradicting what a source says because it's a plain fact that he was President at that time. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as irrelevant when it comes to accurately representing the portrayal of a person in reliable sources. The page your analysis is relying on is't a GA – it isn't even close to being that. If anything, the Yasser Arafat page reflects input from a larger pool of Wikipedia editors, and there there's a footnote that indicates the President/Chairman designation as not being uniform throughout the sources. That being the case, we follow the RS relating to the topic of this article. Edit warring isn't going to solve anything, so I strongly urge you pursue other means of obtaining consensus for your position if you're that passionate about it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Biosketch, you're just plain wrong in this assertion. Arafat was the Chairman of the PLO, the President and Prime Minister of the PA. It's as simple as that. In this case the source referred to Arafat as Chairman probably since he was well-known for being chairman (1969 until his death). It's a fact the PLO Chairman doesn't appoint ministers in the PA (two different bodies), the President/Prime Minister of the PA does. Nothing controversial here. I restored my original version because you failed to reply to my final reasoning three weeks ago and I assumed you realized you were incorrect regarding this matter. I still don't understand your assertion. Stop trying to use the term the RS employs as your argument, we don't have to copy what the source says word for word. Do you honestly deny that he was President at the time? This is such a small issue that I feel I'd be wasting my time, your time and any other editors's time by bringing it up for an RfC. You're more than welcome to. If this issue persists for any longer, I guess that'll be the best option. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- There's no such thing as irrelevant when it comes to accurately representing the portrayal of a person in reliable sources. The page your analysis is relying on is't a GA – it isn't even close to being that. If anything, the Yasser Arafat page reflects input from a larger pool of Wikipedia editors, and there there's a footnote that indicates the President/Chairman designation as not being uniform throughout the sources. That being the case, we follow the RS relating to the topic of this article. Edit warring isn't going to solve anything, so I strongly urge you pursue other means of obtaining consensus for your position if you're that passionate about it.—Biosketch (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns about reflecting what the RS says, but in this case it's an irrelevant matter. This source just happened to use "chairman" Yasser Arafat, instead of his other main titles, but we're more than free to use the more relevant title ("President") to briefly describe who Arafat is. If we were talking about Sheikh Freih being assigned a position in the PLO then we would use "Chairman". In all of the articles I've edited that have gotten GA or peer reviews, I was always asked to use a word to describe a person's job occupation i.e. Biblical scholar Edward Robinson or Israeli historian Benny Morris or Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki and so on. This case is no different. Keep in mind that this is not a case where we're contradicting what a source says because it's a plain fact that he was President at that time. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Occupation titles" is a guideline for when to capitalize the first letters in titles like "president" and "prime minister." It isn't relevant to this discussion. In the third proposed formula above, "Yasser Arafat" can be wikilinked and readers who've never heard of him before'll be able to click on his name and read all they want about him. Now, for the third time, the reason this article can't use "President" is because the RS that's relied on extensively throughout this article uses "Chairman." Wikipedia content is supposed to be generated by reliable sources pertinent to the topic of an article.—Biosketch (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't really apply here since President isn't an unnecessary honorific. See Occupation titles section from the same guideline page. The third alternative begs the unknowing reader's question who is this Yasser Arafat to appoint ministers? This is becoming funny to me because it's such a small and uncontroversial issue. I have to ask again, why does it matter if we use President? We would say Israeli President if it was Shimon Peres, French President if it was Hollande or South African President if was Zuma, why does it matter if we call a spade a spade? No source in the world denies Arafat was President in the 1990s (post-1993). --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The source refers to Arafat as "Chairman," hence that's the terminology the article should be adopting. If "Chairman" could be perceived as misleading, then the article should just refer to Arafat by name alone. An RfC would support simply "Yasser Arafat" because MOS:HONORIFIC is what's relevant in this situation. Personally I think the third formulation above is the clearest and most consistent with the source without getting into the business of how to refer to Arafat in the context of this article.—Biosketch (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I really don't see the problem with using "president". How does it conflict with the RS? It is a plain fact that Arafat was the President at the time (and the Prime Minister and PLO Chairman). If you go to any noticeboard, or RfC and to another admin besides myself, I guarantee they will find no problem with using President. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)