Talk:Nadia Yassir

"Natalie"

Was this in some promotional material? It's not mentioned in the first 4(.25) episodes of the season. --David Bixenspan 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

This article needs to be fixed up. It is written in incorrect tense and it largely based of assumptions of her character pre-season. Neeknitsuj 08:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is the image deleted?

Nadia is a fictional character. There can't be any free image for a fictional character. mirageinred 23:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are Pakistanis Arabs?

Marisol Nichols has said that Yassir is a Pakistani American. As far as I know, Pakistanis are not Arabs, but one of the categories say fictional Arabs. mirageinred 00:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, Pakistani are not just Arab ancestry.Pakistan is having four major ethonic groups Sindhi,Balouch,Pashuto,Punjabi they all have own back ground and ancestry.one thing more Pakistan is in South Asia not in Middle east.Khalidkhoso 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Pakistani are not Arabs, but they can trace their ancestory to the Arabs of the Middle East and therefore, as far as looks go, there deffinately is a resemblance. But, proficiency in Arabic is not common, despite Urdu itself being a daughter-language of Arabic. 195.229.236.213 16:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Urdu is completely unrelated to Arabic. I did some cleanup regarding her fluency in Arabic mirageinred 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Pakistanis are by majority of South Asian genetic descent. Most Pakistanis are of Punjabi and Sindhi ethnic heritage, with a large minority of Iranic-speaking groups such as the Pashtuns and the Baloch of western Pakistan. They are genetically unrelated to the Arab world and are part of the world of greater India and, to a smaller extent, the world of greater Iran. Pakistanis use Arabic for religious studies but their national language is Urdu, which is mostly a cross between Hindi and Persian with minimal Arabic and Turkish borrowings. Its still classified as an Indo-Aryan language and derives its base roots from Sanskrit. Other major languages include Punjabi and Sindhi (both Indo-Aryan languages also derived from Sanskrit) and the closely related minority languages of Pashto and Balochi (both Iranian languages closely related to Persian, Dari and Tajik). The character of Nadia Yassir is based on a cultural confusion between Pakistan and the Arab world on the part of the producers. If they made her a Persian or even Pashto speaker, they would be at least closer to the mark, as Pakistanis are influenced by those linguistic heritages.

Merger

Merge. The character has appeared in only one season of the show, the page seem to contain a lot of cruft and plot synopsis of the character. The character is also talked about as if she is a real character and the article does not assert her notability to justify the article remaining a separate article.--Lucy-marie 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we should wait until season 7. If she doesn't come back by then, the article definitely should be merged. mirageinred 01:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not an unreasonable suggestion I suppose. asyndeton 19:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand you Lucy-Marie. First you say the article should be merged because it's a plot summary. Then you say it should be merged because it's real information. Make your mind up. Neeknitsuj 23:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

comment Both coments are valid the second is a refrwence to the in-universe way a fictional character is being talked asbout.--Lucy-marie 12:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep - she played a major part in Season 6. No need to relegate her to minor characters. Chipsnopotatoes 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)chipsnopotatoes

This editor has made only edits to 3 "merge" discussions; a single-purpose account participating only in editing discussions is a hallmarket of sockpuppetry. --Lquilter (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, if she does not appear in any season 7 episodes, then merge, but if she later appeares the article can be created again. Also, if the "article reads like a plot summary or talked about like she was a real character", it just means the article needs to be cleaned up, it is NOT a valied reason to nominate for deletion. Rhino131 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the 'real character' just meaning it needs to be cleaned up but the plot summary is something that would be very difficult, approaching impossible, to resolve for a character such as Nadia and would be a valid reason for merging per WP:NOT#PLOT. asyndeton 21:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

MergeNeutral It seems unlikely that she will return as the season 7 is taking shape. As I said before, I think we should just wait until the 7th season (given that it will air after the strike) instead of making predictions based on the potential. I will support whatever consensus comes out of this discussion. миражinred (speak, my child...) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, she was a major character in season 6 and was one of very few characters to ever appear in every episode of their only season.Lan Di (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep, Dude she was a MAIN CAST MEMBER. She had a significant role in handling CTU for a good part of the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.77.196 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I count 4 keeps to 2 merges, therefore I am removing the merge tag.--Lan Di (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a DEMOCRACY.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep She was in every episode of Season 6, she was part of the main cast, and she provided a major role during the season. She has the potential to come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.83.137 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Every single character that is not dead has the potential to return. Also WP:CRYSTAL says we assess as is and do not speculate over future notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - There has been a major new development in regards to her, apparently Marisol Nichols was nominated for an award for her portrayal of Nadia Yassir, I believe that is unquestionably a measurment of notability since only kiefer was likely the other person nominated for his portrayal of Jack Bauer.--Lan Di (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Nadia played a large role in Season 6, she was a member of the main cast. This suggestion of merging every character except jack, is just ridiculous. Keep this article. Steve Crossin (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Please do not "vote" and please do not go over old arguments which have been moved on from. The comments are suspiciously similar to otehr users. Please comment constructivly by adding real world notability sources. The above comments do not assert real world notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment What is now overwhelmingly clear is that there are indeed secondary real-world sources to assert this character's notability. It's time to move on and take off the notability tag. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This character got a person nominated for an ALMA Award. Unquestionably that is notable. [1] As I don't know how to do the markup, someone else with knowledge can do it for me.--Lan Di (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Add that fact in, and I'll do the citation. миражinred (speak, my child...) 04:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

better source миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody did it before I did :) Now the question is, does that cover notability? No one else, except maybe Kiefer got a nomination for season 6.--Lan Di (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Her nomination certainly supports the notion that her character is notable enough to have an article of its own. However, I think this can be further solidified if the character makes more appearances in 24 in the future. миражinred (speak, my child...) 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually few if any other actors for Season 6 were nominated much less won anything. There are a few minor categories that were nominated such as for stunts, but the actors got snubbed. --MiB-24 (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On its own as the only independent source, notability is probably not established for the character. This is because the award focuses on the actors portrayal, rather than what the character did. If other independent sources are found along with the nomination notability could easily be established. The award is also ethinicly based towards lation actors, which the actress is but the character is not.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but also there are probably thousands of different characters and actors/actresses that could have been nominated, but she got into the top 3, which is unusual for a character of that stature to even get nominated. It was nominated for Marisol Nichols for the portrayal of the character. The fact that the character existed is a factor of nominating actresses.--Lan Di (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your argument, but as a stand alone as the only notabiltiy it is not enough, combined with other independent sources, then notability could be established.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I second your view. The nomination certainly helps but I'm not sure if it is enough to make the article stand on its own. миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I never intended it to be stand alone, but as I have a course load to deal with in college, I have to take care of that also. So I don't have a lot of time, and I am working on getting time, as I have a course on video, and doing research on video includes critiquing 24 characters, which I picked, so I am doing research on them.--Lan Di (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Work in progress on article

• As you may notice, this article is being worked on again. Citations, and references, to demonstrate real world notability, are being searched for. Please do not merge or delete this article while it is under construction. Steve Crossin (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are definitely more secondary sources now. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm also going to add an image for the character, would you mind checking that my reasoing is OK? Steve Crossin (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. миражinred (سَراب) (speak, my child...) 03:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• It looks much better, and certainly seems to pass a quick up-or-down notability review at this point. My hope is that after the disputes have settled down, and everyone has done what they think is needed to bring the articles -- lists or stand-alones -- to the best possible shape, we can then start figuring out the best way to treat the whole body of 24 articles. I'm immmeasurably cheered to see positive work going forward with a minimum of sniping. --Lquilter (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cro0016/Steve Crossin asked my opinion about the notability tags; here's my response: As I said before, I don't think we should remove or add any notability or merge-related tags until things settle down. It doesn't really matter, except for aesthetics. Personally, I would just post a note to the talk page that this appears to be settled; do most people agree; will the notability tag be lifted once the injunction is over with. Build consensus, but be aware that some people may not be watching the discussion because of the injunction, so we have to wait for a little while. The whole point of the injunction is to avoid churn, confusion, and unnecessary argument while people are working, but instead to permit people to work together peacefully. So I wouldn't go asking for exceptions -- it sort of defeats the point. It's only a couple more weeks, anyway. Just my 2c. --Lquilter (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I had no intention of deleting the tag, I was just asking for the opinion of other users, whether they believe the article has achieved a notability status, in accordance with WP:FICT and a mere request that the article not be merged until this has been decided on. Steve Crossin (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• We can't remove the tags anyways until ArbCom is done making up their minds.--Lan Di (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal-Update

• Well, even though there is an injunction still in effect, I think that the article has now been improved extensively, and real-world notability has definetly been established, that we should get an updated opinion on whether this article should be merged. However, the merge tag cannot be removed/article merged, until the injunction is lifted.

• Keep- as the article has been improved extensively, and real world notability has been established, it most surely meets the guidelines requirements of WP:FICT, therefore deserving its own article. Steve Crossin (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article has plenty of sources now to assert its notability and I'm quite confident that the article will be kept after the arbitration is over. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nadia Yassir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312030858/http://www.marisol-nichols.com/interests_questions.html to http://www.marisol-nichols.com/interests_questions.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latina.com/latina/entertainment/entertainment.jsp?genre=tv&article=marisolnichols
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080131164333/http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/01/31/News/Popular.Show.negative.Stereotypes-2687807.shtml to http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/01/31/News/Popular.Show.negative.Stereotypes-2687807.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)