Talk:Mohamed Hadid

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

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Request for comment on place of birth[edit]

How should the place of birth of Mohamed Hadid be described? Prior RfC

  1. Nazareth (now Israel)
  2. Nazareth (Israel)
  3. Nazareth (Palestine)

FortunateSons (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have excluded all factually inaccurate versions per the last RfC. Comments (with either vote) may include a suggested description as listed in the last close. My reason for the new rfc is the the old one is - well, old - and not stable. FortunateSons (talk) 08:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what it is exactly that you excluded, but I added option 3 since RfCs are supposed to present all the possible options to the readers. M.Bitton (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Per the RFC closure, as there was no Palestinian state and the mandate had been dissolved months before his birth. FortunateSons (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a new RfC and as such, it has to be neutral and present all the options to the readers. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That option would not be supported by RS, as there is neither a state nor a mandate at the time of birth. What could work is Palestine (region), but that is a vague term considering the area was and has been under continuous control by Israel since months before his birth. FortunateSons (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. M.Bitton (talk) 13:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the dissolution of the mandate, his date of birth and the lack of a Palestinian state during his DOB are facts. The vagueness is indeed my opinion FortunateSons (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from bludgeoning the process. M.Bitton (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. Excluding our
votes (and the actions associated with the creation of the RfC) we both have the same number of comments and I only responded to you (after you responded to my comment). Disagreement is not bludgeoning. However, as the issue at hand is unlikely to find consensus here, I will disengage as long as no one continues the discussion with new arguments. On that note, To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided. FortunateSons (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly BLUDGEONING the process in an attempt to force your POV in a section that is supposed to be about the RfC's structure. M.Bitton (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is not bludgeoning the process I see valid argue ments or pov pushing please be civil and respect other editors opinions •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:28, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making a case for their !Vote in the lead section of the RfC is not just bludgeoning, it's a form of system gaming to avoid the spirit of community consensus. This is basic common sense. M.Bitton (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really as if theoretically I was born in new York and it became under control of Canada I would be born in New York still and would still be a United States citizen by birth and I see no major correlation between the vote and the comment •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again, another editor making a case for their !vote in the lead section of the RfC. I rest my case. M.Bitton (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nah you can’t read I am explaining why he removed a option. My vote has nothing to do with this •Cyberwolf•talk? 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a case for their !vote (because you've been WP:CANVASSED). Anyway, what needed to be said has been said, so please refrain from banging on about it. M.Bitton (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been canvassed also I’m not making a case for their vote specifically but making a case for the removal of the option•Cyberwolf•talk? 15:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking. I know for a fact that you have been canvassed, that's what's preventing you from actually spending some time reading what I wrote. M.Bitton (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually read your writing it was not canvassing I was simply curious and felt like looking into the conversation and saw no bludgeoning or pov pushing•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep repeating that to yourself. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you so hostile why can’t you just talk it out with out accusing me I just simply don’t understand why you avoid conversation?•Cyberwolf•talk? 16:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Option 2 is factually accurate and is therefore the better choice. The city had been under effective control for months before his birth, was no longer militarily contested and remains under Israeli control. There were no other countries or governments in the area during that time, and the mandate had been dissolved prior to his birth. Therefore, the birthplace is Israel. FortunateSons (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, why even mention that it's Israel at all nowadays. Just link to Nazareth and leave as is.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is the common practice in Wikipedia to mention the country of birth, and not just the city. Vegan416 (talk) 23:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither. I agree with Ortizesp. Nazareth doesn't even need a mention of Israel. signed, SpringProof talk 05:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1, per previous consensus. I strongly oppose 2 given that there are sources that say Palestine and the fact that it's what the BLP subject says about his country of birth. M.Bitton (talk) 11:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - just a link to Nazareth suffices. nableezy - 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither as using just Nazareth would stop future fighting hopefully •Cyberwolf•talk? 19:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither, so we avoid fighting over it in the future. It was a controversial time around there. But I believe Option 2 is the most factual, as he was born right after Israel was established, and Nazareth is located in the part of Israel where the international consensus is that... it's Israel, no qualifier. CVDX (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. He was born in November 1948, and on that date Nazareth was already part of Israel. Vegan416 (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Footnote 13 for BLP[edit]

Per this, we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. As it’s additionally accentuates this criticism, I would be in favor of removal here. FortunateSons (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is just repeating what he said. There is nothing in it that cannot be verified. M.Bitton (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then let’s cite it as aboutself from social media? FortunateSons (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to do that given that the source is not deprecated. M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution — for biographies of living people per close, this is a highly contentious topic, and we have a better source. FortunateSons (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's used with great caution (everything in it is verifiable). M.Bitton (talk) 12:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The aboutself here is the best source, and Mondoweiss distinctly isn’t. FortunateSons (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. M.Bitton (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With which part? The restriction for ABOUTSELF are lower than those now applicable to MW, and the use of MW is more contentious. FortunateSons (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With your analysis. Since there is nothing in the secondary source that isn't verifiable, I see no reason to either remove it or discuss it ad nauseam. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Noticeboard Discussion here FortunateSons (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim family[edit]

No, M.Bitton, I am not disputing that he is a Muslim but none of these sources mentions that he or his family is Muslim so that statement needs a new citation. Note the page is in the American Muslims category so this needs to be verified in the article and currently isn't. I presume it's easy to find a source for this, but in the meantime we shouldn't abuse the footnotes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to source common knowledge. M.Bitton (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my understanding of our WP:VERIFY policy. Anyway, there's a bunch of possible sources e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] These all say he's Palestinian and Muslim (although I can't find a source that doesn't look like it's copied and pasted from this article which describes his family as Palestinian Muslim). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy says that everything must be "attributable", which is the case in this instance. M.Bitton (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we need to attribute the claim to a reliable source, no? Because at the moment we don't. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't: that's what makes the difference between a claim that is easily "attributable" to a source (such as this one or the fact that most people have five digits on each hand) and one that isn't, i.e., a claim that needs to be "attributed" to RS. That's why I asked whether you're disputing this simple fact. M.Bitton (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You're saying that WP policy is that our content could in theory be attributed but we don't need to bother to actually attribute? Instead of citing a source we can encourage readers to use google? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. We don't usually attribute common knowledge to RS, otherwise, our articles will become unreadable. That said, you're welcome to add one if you deem it necessary. M.Bitton (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safed Jewish family story has some issues[edit]

Hadid's claim that his family lost their home in Safed seems complicated by the fact that he is from Nazareth, which is still an Arab city. I also am not aware of Polish Jewish refugees in Safed. This article casts doubt on his claims. This profile presents a different account and doesn't mention any such Jewish family. I've added text to attribute this story to an Instagram post he made, in the meantime. Zanahary (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are clear discrepancies in MH's family story that have yet to be properly looked into (I am still perplexed as to how his 1980s story of his family leaving of their own accord out of a desire to not live under Israelis transformed into a 2015 tale of being kicked out by Jewish refugees who locked them out of their own house). I'm sure time will tell.
That said, to clear one item up: Hadid was born at his grandmother's home in Nazareth. His family's home was in Safed. Mistamystery (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha Zanahary (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Politics[edit]

@M.bitton what BLP issues exactly? Incident was widely covered (including by numerous RS) and he also addressed the matter publicly. Mistamystery (talk) 13:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" (used in the source that you added) are there for a reason. M.Bitton (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes except, as per source, he confirmed said alleged behavior in his apology.
Re: politics, it matches section titles on his daughters’ pages. They are likewise not politicians. What would you propose the appropriate section title? Activism? Controversy? Mistamystery (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, words like "reportedly" and "allegedly" (used in the source that you added) are there for a reason. Besides, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. M.Bitton (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so how about:
On April 20, 2024, it was revealed that Hadid had reportedly been sending United States congressman Ritchie Torres "racist" and "homophobic" messages via Instagram in response to Torres' support of Israel. Hadid subsequently issued an apology.[1]
Mistamystery (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not "revealed", per WP:CLAIM: it undermines the point of "reportedly". I'd follow the source: "apologized after allegedly sending". So:
"In April 2024, it was reported that Hadid had apologized after allegedly sending United States congressman Ritchie Torres "racist" and "homophobic" messages via Instagram in response to Torres' support of Israel." BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Mistamystery (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how something that is described as "reportedly" and "allegedly" belongs in a BLP article, especially given the fact that it has no relevance whatsoever to the notability of the living person. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This made national and international news (including RS), and his notability and coverage in recent years is very much centered on his Palestinian identity and activism (as is of his daughters, which each have their own according sections pertaining to this such topic).
If it doesn't violate BLP on their pages, it most certainly does not violate it here. Mistamystery (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a massive difference between what's news worthy and what is encyclopedic.
If it doesn't violate BLP on their pages that's a very big if (I haven't checked their pages and don't intend to). M.Bitton (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what I think about him or his daughters. It's plain fact that matters connected to his ancestry as a Palestinian are central to him (and are already well represented elsewhere on the page).
Additionally, his reported (and well addressed on the wiki) connections to the SAAR Foundation also make his notability surrounding middle eastern affairs prominent and notable. Mistamystery (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to which "reportedly" and "allegedly" apply are not "facts", least of encyclopedic ones. That's a fact! M.Bitton (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Piña, Christy (2024-04-20). "Mohamed Hadid Apologizes for Sending Racist, Homophobic Messages to Rep. Ritchie Torres". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2024-04-22.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohamed_Hadid&oldid=1220421533"