Talk:Rawan Osman

Latest comment: 3 days ago by ForsythiaJo in topic Notability review

Reply to Rawan Osman article deletion proposal

edit

It is crucial to maintain and amplify the sensible voices that persist on both sides of the Middle East conflict. This task is comparatively more feasible in Israel, a liberal democracy that guarantees freedom of expression. In contrast, it presents greater challenges in Arab Muslim countries, where authoritarian systems prevail and the separation between religion and state is often blurred.

The argument of lack of notability or weak sources does not hold in this case. The article in question presents sufficient information and solid references, more so than many other similar articles about other public figures.

It is plausible that those proposing the elimination of the article have motivations beyond those explicitly stated, such as:

  1. Rejection of freedom of expression
  2. Attempt to perpetuate ignorance between individuals or groups perceived as different
  3. Indirect contribution to the dehumanization of those seen as "enemies," "different," or "infidels"

These actions, whether conscious or not, can have significant consequences on public perception and social discourse. The preservation of diverse and well-documented information is crucial to foster understanding and counter polarization. Pedroep (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Pedroep, you are essentially arguing that actual notability per our guidelines is less important than turning Wikipedia into a forum where "both sides" can be heard. Well, that's not a good argument, even though it's nice and well-organized. That's probably why this was flagged as 100% AI-generated. Drmies (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • As the article creator, I wanted to second that Wikipedia’s notability guidelines should ultimately shape the decision on whether or not this article stays. ForsythiaJo (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • I believe that relevance of people depends on many factors, among them the importance of including politically moderate individuals like Rowan Osman, especially on the Arab-Muslim side of this ongoing conflict. Pedroep (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
    • We are discussing visibility, not social networks, specifically the impact that a person has in the media, for instance. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with their opinions; that is not relevant because, first and foremost, it is about defending freedom of expression. This cannot be undermined by subjective opinions such as claims of lack of notability or weak sources. Pedroep (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
      • Pedroep, what are you talking about? We don't really do "freedom of expression" here as contributing a subject's notability. We're not "discussing visibility"--we're seeing whether someone qualifies, per our guidelines, as notable. The subjective opinions are in fact yours, though couched in the fake objectivity of an LLM. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
        Let's talk about what qualifies someone as notable, and enough of your ad hominem arguments like '100% Al-generated’, 'fake objectivity of an LLM’, and so on. A few days ago, I watched an interview with Anwar Osman on YouTube, which I found interesting (subjective opinion), hence I decided to learn a little more about him. As always, Wikipedia was a useful source of information, with biographical details, plenty of sources, and extensive references. In other words, the article served its purpose. Pedroep (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notability review

edit

This section is meant for users to discuss whether the article, as it currently stands, fulfills Wikipedia's notability requirements:

"People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[1] and independent of the subject."

  • The Washington Institute: Not independent of the subject
  • Fathom: Not independent of the subject
  • The Times of Israel 1: Independent of the subject, may not count as significant coverage
  • The Times of Israel 2: Not independent of the subject
  • Jewish News Syndicate: Interview, not independent of the subject
  • Jewish news Service: Independent of the subject, may not count as significant coverage
  • The Jerusalem Post: Independent of the subject, may not count as significant coverage
  • Jewish Journal: Not independent of the subject
  • Marietta Daily Journal: Independent of the subject, may not count as significant coverage
  • Cairo 24: Independent of the subject

So, 5 sources are independent of Osman (and thus can be used to try to establish notability), while 4 are not. I think ideally it would be useful to find more independent sources, potentially from Arabic or Hebrew-language sources. I invite anyone who would like to try to improve the article in this regard :) ForsythiaJo (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable). For example, a speech by a politician about a particular person contributes toward establishing the notability of that person, but multiple reproductions of the transcript of that speech by different news outlets do not. A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing their notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.