Talk:Iman (model)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
WikiProject Somalia  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somalia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somalia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Iman (concept)[edit]

List of Islamic terms in Arabic links to the Arabic word called Iman. I don't think the intention was to Bowie's wife. Disambiguation page?


Isn't an "Iman" a priest? Or was that an "Imam"?
Sorry, that was "Imam". I mixed them up. "Iman" seemed to mean "personal faith".

Music videos[edit]

Iman played the Queen alongside Eddie Murphy (Pharaoh) in Michael Jackson's 'Remember The Time' music video.


"Her actual measurments are 34-28-36. It is a common mistake to note that her waist is 23 inches, this is incorrect."

... but ...

"Measurements 34C-23-35"

Obviously one or the other must be wrong -- can someone who knows (or who cares enough to research this) please amend? Ozaru 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

-- I'm sorry, but why exactly are her measurements being given on her profile? This hardly seems to me as relevant information about her, should measurements be listed for every celebrity on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, her hair is not and has never been naturally straight as an African...She has frequently throught her career moved from kinky hair styles to straight hair styles....Makes wonder why the texture of her hair was mentioned in the first place.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

-- What is is about her african-ess ( sorry about the fake word) that denies her straight hair? Is it not a common fact that straight and curly hair are a norm in Somalis? Maybe they were just trying to defend anyone trying to say her hair was God-forbid fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Considering where she's from and the simple sound of her name, does she have a Muslim background? 00:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Somalia and Islam co-exist much the way Israel and the Jewish faith are. You can't separate the two. So by default yes she probably does have one but its part of her identity as much as eating McDonalds is to peoples' childhood -- so not worth mentioning in any specific way. (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that she's doing modelling means that she left Islam long long time ago. Unless She's one of those people who claim to be a muslim while going against the Quran (to be a muslim you have to follow the Quran). (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


Iman was the first African model (Black or otherwise) to make the cover of Vogue, but Donyale Luna was the first non-African Black model to do so. However, Iman is the first Black model (African or otherwise) to sign a cosmetics contract. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Iman is not black. She is Cushitic, and as such, possesses a completely different genetic and ancestral background from blacks. But if it means so much to you to point out that she was the first African to appear on the cover of Vogue, I guess that's okay. Somalia is, after all, geographically located on the African continent as are Egypt, Morocco and Ethiopia. I'm still going to require a citation from you though as proof that she was the first. I can't just take your word for it. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I’m aware of that, but Iman identifies as Black. Anyway, it doesn’t matter because I’m taking it out regardless; I’ve found various sources but none of them seem solid enough to support the claim. Sorry. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Iman only claims to identify as "black" so as not to alienate her large and lucrative customer-base in that community. The truth is, she used her first black husband to get a green card and once she got it, promptly divorced him. The half-black child she had with him also claims that she was a cold, distant and neglectful mother -- a mom from hell in her own words. Contrast that with her constant gushing in the media over her half-white child with David Bowie, and you have yourself an entirely different picture. Causteau (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the above comment, you really need to get a grip and stop reading all those tabloids. I think Iman would in the best position to know if she was black or not. She is of African descent, which makes her black, whether she is mixture by another race and is well able to identify herself as such. Lenny Kravitz is half-black and half-Hebrew, however no one is going to tell him that is isn't black. Get a life, if you even know what it is.

How does she know French?[edit]

Where would she learn it?

Why does she not know Swahili? Are these facts even correct? I've been to Kenya and am Somali as well. My family was raised there, and most Kenyans (Somali as well) must learn Swahili in order to interact with everyday life. Especially if she claims to have been going to University of Nairobi. I think someone needs to extensively research what languages she REALLY speaks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Somali and Arabic, Iman speaks French and an assortment of other European languages because of her modeling career that required her to work in many different international locations. She does not speak Swahili since, unlike what you claim, one does not need to speak that particular language to get by in Kenya. English is the de facto official language there and just about everyone speaks and understands it. This includes most Somalis who, incidentally, aren't "Kenyan" (whatever that means) but simply expatriate Somalis. Were you an actual Somali as you claim, you'd already know this. Iman also comes from a privileged background, was raised in an anglophone milieu, and attended English schools, not Swahili ones. That's why she speaks the languages she speaks, and not the ones you wish she did. (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See also[edit]

Per recent discussion, I can find no justification for the listings under the See also section. Failing substantial reasoning, I will remove them again shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per the discussion, you have been given substantial reasons (not that that was even necessary; the connection between the models is obvious to anyone). Anyone can see that they're related articles; you're the only one who can't, or rather refuses to. You also haven't provided any substantial reasons for their removal. You've only insisted that they're "not related", and alluded to some bizarre Alice Cooper connection. What on Earth does Alice Cooper have to do with any of these women let alone Iman? Is he a woman? No. Is he Somali? No. Is he a model? No. Is he in any way related to any of these women? No. Worked with them, perhaps? No. Are they inspirations/mentors for him? No. Like I said, no reasons have been provided for the removal of these See Also links (which isn't even supported by WP:SEEALSO anyway), only for their inclusion. Middayexpress (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Consider this: Iman is a female model who maried a rock star. Should we add Kelly Emberg, Alana Stewart, Rachel Hunter, Penny Lancaster-Stewart, Christie Brinkley, Tawny Kitaen...?
As I said before, listing other Female Somali models under "See also" here is as logical as listing the hundreds of English male singers on Eric Clapton.
Next, it is redundant with the category Category:Somali female models. Should we also list everyone listed under Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States? Why not?
Next, you've repetedly refered to various supposed connections between these women: "good friends", "mentor", "thought by may to be her cousin", etc. This is fine if you list them as such and provide reliable sources.
Finally, when I pointed out that the guideline you cited also stated "Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent." you added that Waris Dirie is a "former model & UN Special Ambassador". Does that make the relevance to Iman apparent? Iman and Dirie are both former models. This would give us an extensive "See also" section. Iman is/was not a UN Special Ambassador, so the relevance of that portion is mysterious.
You say I am "the only one who can't, or rather refuses to...see that they're related articles". You're the only one who has expressed that they are related articles. I'm leaving the other three alone for the moment at taking this one as the test case to WP:3O for a third opinion. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
(from the outside) One does not list all French actresses as linked to Brigitte Bardot -- the concept of having this "see also" bit is not seemingly in line with WP practice. As a "category" already exists, use it. Collect (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion I would agree that articles on other Somali models are "related" to this one. However, that does not mean that the best way to indicate this relationship is via the See Also section. According to WP:SEEALSO an entry should be included in the See Also section only if it would be included in a "hypothetical perfect article". But an article about Iman would not necessarily discuss any other Somali models, because the article is not about those other models. This would not apply if there were some specific news story that involved both her and some other model, but in that case, the story should be included in the text of the article, and the other link would obviously be there.

As I say, the issue is not whether the other articles are related to this one: I would agree that they are. But the correct way to indicate that relationship is through a Category, not through the See Also section. I note that there already is such a category, and that anyone wishing to navigate to that list from this page can therefore do so easily from the list of categories at the very bottom of the page. There is, in my opinion, no need to repeat this information elsewhere in the article - or there would be no purpose in having categories. Anaxial (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated Somali girls[edit]

My 2 cents. I was looking for an article on Aman - a Somali girl, victim of FGM, who escapes to America at 17-18. [1] Was unable to find an article on her. So went to Waris Dirie's wiki page. And saw the line: Contrary to popular belief Waris is not related to fellow Somali model Iman. Then I realised the model is Iman, and she's not the same as Aman. Maybe a line stating that could help others too. Like Iman is not related to Aman OR Waris. Believe, it or faint, vogue models are not well known all over the world! (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

U.S. citizenship[edit]

When did she acquire it? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


This article was recently moved without discussion. Let's discuss before I move it back.

Generally, Wikipedia lists people by the names they are best known by. So, while here legal name might be Cherilyn LaPierre, her article is "Cher". Similarly, Gordon Matthew Thomas Sumner is at Sting (musician). As Iman Abdeulmajid is generally known as Iman, I feel we should list her accordingly. Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree it should be moved back. More people will know exactly who Iman (model) is, far fewer will know for sure who Iman Abdulmajid is. (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it is pointless and unnecessary to rename the page, as Iman's real name indeed isn't "Iman (model)" but Iman Abdulmajid. If the fear is that people will hereafter have a hard time finding her article since most folks perhaps know her simply as "Iman" (not as "Iman (model)") rather than by her actual full name, I'd point out that the search term "Iman" didn't and doesn't lead to this article anyway. It led and leads to this disambiguation page. And the latter disambiguation page already included and includes an explanation of who Iman is to begin with, so there was never and is no possibility that people might not know who she is. A simple redirect from "Iman (model)" to this page should cover the remaining existing links that point directly to this page, and that's something which has already been seen to. Middayexpress (talk) 11:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
What's the difference between this case and, for example, Madonna (entertainer)? Why isn't her article at Madonna Louise Ciccone or Madonna Ciccone? - (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no difference. Wikipedia names articles about people based on "the most used name to refer to a person" (see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens). So, James Earl Carter, Jr. is at Jimmy Carter. Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus is at Julius Caesar. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary is at Elizabeth II. Compare Voltaire, Colette, Stendhal, Trevanian, Michelangelo, Chryssa, Pelé, Ronaldo, Teller (magician), Cher, Sting (musician), Madonna (entertainer), Mark Twain, Marilyn Monroe, Billy the Kid, Prince (musician), ...
The most used name to refer to Iman Abdulmajid is "Iman". It's how she's referred to in the press, film credits, etc. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. Suggest the page be moved back to Iman (model) per policy/guidelines & examples mentioned. - (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, while the most common name Iman is referred to is perhaps indeed "Iman" and not "Iman Abdulmajid" (her actual full name), it certainly is not "Iman (model)". The latter is neither her real name nor even her primary occupation anymore. And to the IP: anonymous votes, for obvious and very good reasons, do not count, nor is Wikipedia a democracy. Middayexpress (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying the Madonna (entertainer) article is incorrectly named, yes? - (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1 Her name is Iman Abdulmajid. She is best known as Iman. Therefore, Wikipedia should name her article "Iman", per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens and Wikipedia:NAME#Use_common_names_of_persons_and_things. The article quite clearly should not be at "Iman Abdulmajid".
2 There are other articles that "should" be named "Iman", much like "Madonna", "Teller", "Prince" and "Sting". As a result, Wikipedia guidelines call for specification by what the subject is best known for. You argue that model is not her "primary occupation". This is moot. She is best known as a model, as the very first sentance of her article makes unambiguously clear. " a Somali supermodel." Thus, the article should be titled "Iman (model)".
3 Comments in this and other discussions from unregistered ("IP") users are not discounted because they came from unregistered users. As you note, this is not a vote. Rather, the content of the comment applies the same without reguard to origin. Valid arguments (i.e., those based on our principles and guidelines) from first time users easily outweigh invalid arguments from anyone.
4 You have not made any arguments on the basis of Wikipedia guidelines for keeping the article where you unilaterally moved it to. Our guidelines quite clearly indicate that the article should be at "Iman (model)". Failing substantive arguments based on our policies and/or guidelines to have the article named anything else, I will be returning the article to "Iman (model)" tomorrow. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Her name is indeed Iman Abdulmajid, and she is probably best known as Iman. However, you are not proposing that we rename her article to how she is best known (i.e. "Iman"). You are proposing to rename it to "Iman (model)", which is neither how she is best known, nor her real, full name, nor even her primary occupation.
2. There are indeed other articles that should be named Iman, and certainly well before the woman in question's article. Like the Islamic concept Iman, for example (which, incidentally, Iman Abdulmajid was named after). However, there's nothing "moot", I'm afraid, about Iman's primary occupation not being modeling. Actually, she herself indicates as much on her website, where she recounts her biography and what she has done and currently does in life. And what she says about her life is that she -- and I quote -- began her career as a model way back when in the seventies. In other words, modeling is not in and of itself her career and hasn't been for quite some time now; it just marked the early part of it. Iman also mentions that she was and is an author, having written several books since the early 2000's. In addition, she cites her philanthropic work as the Global Ambassador for the Keep A Child Alive Foundation. But her primary occupation is as CEO of IMAN Cosmetics, and has been for the past 15 years. In other words, she is a businesswoman. In fact, her personal website is her business website: -- she doesn't even have one for her supposedly "primary" modeling career of yore!
3. Anonymous IP comments most certainly are discounted when they appear to try and tip the balance in favor of one viewpoint. The reason for this is obvious: You yourself could be the IP anonymously "supporting" your own arguments.
4. Actually, what I have not based my arguments on is twisting Wikipedia's policies for my own ends i.e. Wikilawyering. I have based them on commonsense and Iman's own words. Furthermore, you cannot force or otherwise attempt to bypass consensus by insisting that you "will be returning the article to "Iman (model)" tomorrow". I'm afraid "our" Wikipedia just does not work that way. Middayexpress (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If you have any arguments based on policy or guidelines, please present them. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
There were many discussions that we had in en.wikipedia over articles related to famous people. For example,Beyoncé is a famous R&B singer/songwriter, but also she is a dancer, model and actress. Her article is Beyoncé Knowles, not Beyoncé (singer), Beyoncé (dancer), Beyoncé (model) etc.
Iman is an Arabic word, and an Islamic term for religious belief. There are many people with that first name, as famous as her (eg. Princess Iman), therefore I would suggest to keep the full name, as it is now. --Kaaveh (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Beyoncé Knowles is very well known as Beyoncé Knowles, and her article refers to her as Knowles, not as Beyoncé. How about the Madonna (entertainer) example?
For the full name to be kept as the article name, you need to explain why the policies/guidelines already cited don't apply. (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No we do not because the policies don't cover "Iman (model)"; they only cover "Iman" since the latter is how she is most commonly known and not the former. Also IP, I don't mean to sound rude, but your opinions don't count in this discussion. See this link as to why that is. Middayexpress (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the Wikipedia:Sockpuppets link. Please, ask for this to be investigated, to put your mind at rest - nothing to hide here. - (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

As repetedly explained, the guidelines that apply here are Wikipedia:Name#General_conventions ("...title an article using the most common name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. Make the title unique as described in the disambiguation guideline.") and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Qualifier_between_bracketing_parentheses (with [[Prince (musician) cited there as the example). Given Madonna, Prince and others, I feel the guidelines are quite clear on this. Failing explanations based on policy and/or guidelines to the contrary within the day, I will be taking this to an univolved admin for closure. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, your arguments are not based on policy, but on distortions of policy. The link you cited, for example, specifically concerns disambiguating between two persons with the exact same name. It doesn't address disambiguating between Islamic concepts (i.e. Iman (concept)) and persons, as is the case in our present situation. This is why all of the cited examples exclusively address like-named people:
Note that the qualifier in parentheses specifically refers to the person's profession. And as I've already demonstrated above using Iman's own words from her personal/business website, modeling is not her primary occupation and hasn't been for almost twenty years now. Furthermore, the Qualifier between bracketing parentheses and Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens sections of policy that you have been linking to are categorized in a sub-section of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guideline titled When it seems difficult to follow the "<First Name> <Last Name>" format. The thing is, it is not "difficult" to follow the default "<First Name> <Last Name>" format, as the present article is already titled Iman Abdulmajid. What you are then proposing is to rename the article to something (i.e. "Iman (model") that is neither her real name, nor her profession, nor even Wikipedia's preferred naming system, when the disambiguation page that the term Iman leads to anyway already explains (and explained) who the woman is to begin with. Wikipedia, moreover, discourages the type of disambiguating you are attempting to add:

*Do not have additional qualifiers (such as "King", "Saint", "Dr.", "(person)", "(ship)"), except when this is the simplest and most NPOV way to deal with disambiguation

As we've seen, this as well is neither the simplest nor the most NPOV way of dealing with this issue since, among other things, it requires pigeon-holing Iman into a profession that does not and has not characterized her life for two decades now. It also requires renaming the page away from Iman Abdulmajid, which is the woman's real first and last name, perfectly in sync with the recommended "<First Name> <Last Name>" convention. Middayexpress (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have requested closure by an uninvolved admin at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Iman_.28model.29_vs._Iman_Abdulmajid - SummerPhD (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have. Only you neglected to link them to this talk page discussion. Middayexpress (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving back[edit]

I've reviewed the discussion, and with the consensus (not unanimous, but majority here) and our relevant policy (article name == most commonly known name of the person or thing in english), I believe that we should move back to Iman (model). I have just done so.

This is not a final judgement - a more detailed discussion here, request for comment or poll here can establish that there's more consensus for the other way. However, our general policy and the rough consensus here now both are for the Iman (model). A case can potentially be made to make an exception to the general policy. However, I think it's reasonable to state that the burden of proof both on correctness/reasonableness of the rename per policy, and burden of proof on consensus of editors, lie in the hands of those who want the article name Iman Abdulmajid. Those of you who feel strongly on that point are welcome to develop a more detailed proposal and hold a poll to try and change consensus, but should leave the article name as-is unless and until then. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached, George. I'm sure you mean well, but you are more than incorrect in suggesting that it has. And Wikipedia's policies are not in favor of renaming the page to "Iman (model)". They are in favor of a "<First Name> <Last Name>" format, as I've demonstrated above with my post dated 00:28, 10 April 2009. Failing that, they are in favor of a most common name strategy, which in this case would be "Iman", not "Iman (model)". In fact, policies expressly discourage that sort of parenthetical disambiguation, as I've also demonstrated above. Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator - we were asked on ANI to come take a look, and I did.
  • The discussion has gone on for over 2 weeks, since March 25th.
  • There have been four people who already were involved with the article who supported Iman (model) and two that supported Iman Abdulmajid. One ANI contributor agreed with the Iman (model), and one inquired as to whether she used her maiden name Abdulmajid or Bowie as her last name now (apparently the former, but not directly relevant to the article name, and evidence supports her still going by her first name alone as stage name)
  • Those reading policy as prefering "most common name" "optional disambiguator" (i.e., Madonna (entertainer)) are correctly reading the cited policies and other existing usage.
  • I reviewed the discussion here and policy and precedents prior to taking any action. Please assume good faith about administrators that we do homework and don't just leap into problems without checking.
    • I repeat my earlier conclusion - as an uninvolved administrator, in my judgement, there's a consensus here and the consensus is in line with wider Wikipedia policy and precedent. For the time being the name should remain Iman (model).
Middayexpress - you are welcome to continue discussions and attempt to change the consensus. The policy isn't in this case so unambiguous that a local consensus could not justify using another name, such as Iman Abdulmajid. However, you are currently outvoted 5:2. Discussion has been ongoing for 2 weeks and has developed a stable set of arguments on each side. That's a consensus.
I would like to request that you not disruptively rename again. In my judgement, as an uninvolved administrator, there clearly is consensus at this time.
As I stated earlier, there's no reason to stifle further discussion. If you can change people's minds and hold a poll which shows that consensus has changed, then that's a different story. But right now - consensus exists. You can disagree with what that consensus believes - but please don't insist that there's no consensus. You disagreeing with the consensus opinion is your right. You asserting there is no consensus is not right - uninvolved administrators are allowed to review and determine consensus on WP discussions.
Please accept that consensus exists now, and that further change should be based on changing people's minds first.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you've moved the page back. Only this time you've indicated that consensus has been reached because the "vote" apparently was 5 to 2. However, last I checked, Wikipedia was not a democracy:

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."

But just who exactly are these 5 other editors anyway? I'm looking at the Administrator's Noticeboard, and I only see one editor -- hmwithτ -- voting in favor of SummerPhD. One other editor simply asked a question that the other answered. And all of this discussion took place without SummerPhD even having the courtesy to link to this talk page discussion (I don't blame him, though). That would therefore make it only two editors plus yourself versus myself and the person who originally renamed the page. Last I checked, that was not nearly enough to constitute WP:CONSENSUS. By the way, if you count your vote, then you're essentially an involved administrator and therefore cannot avail yourself of your administrator privileges for this dispute. Middayexpress (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to editors here, but I miscounted something. I'm reviewing the discussion above again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Just read this whole discussion and support the move back to Iman (model) for all the reasons listed. Also, Middayexpress, please don't bite anonymous editors. Opinions of editors without a username definitely do count. If there is a case of case sock puppetry, please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Garion96 (talk)
Okay guys. But I'll have you know that attempting to force consensus by vote is an exercise in futility. Changes that last can only be brought about organically. Anything other than that is bound to be overturned sooner or later. Middayexpress (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Miscount review[edit]

As I stated above, I had read the discussion top to bottom a couple of times prior to deciding whether consensus existed, etc. However, when I went back to total up the opinions on each side, I miscounted. I misread some comments as being by other editors, based on misreading formatting.

Actual count of talk page participants is a 2:2 tie -

  • SummerPHD and IP editor at 58.8.* for Iman (model)
  • Middayexpress and Kaaveh Ahangar for Iman Abdulmajid

Additional opinions expressed as a result of the ANI posting:

  • Garion96 and Hmwith for Iman (model)
  • LessHeard vanU asking about Abdulmajid vs Bowie for last name, but not clearly expressing a final preference

My opinion on the policy stands as stated earlier. However, I'm going to ask another uninvolved admin to review and redetermine consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll recount:
For Iman Abdulmajid:
  • Kaaveh Ahangar (talk page)
  • Middayexpress (talk page)
For Iman (model):
  • SummerPhD (talk page -- IP's votes don't count; see this)
  • hmwith (AN)
  • Garion96 (talk page)
That's 3-2, hardly consensus. And in case I misquoted it before, Wikipedia is not a democracy and "voting" is no way of determining consensus:

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."

Middayexpress (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
IP editors are as welcome to participate in polling on Wikipedia as anyone. If you believe that SummerPHD is sockpuppeting as the 58.8.* IP then please provide some evidence. Unless there's evidence presented, the IP's contributions are as valid as anyone else's.
There are two more contributors on AN who agreed with Hmwith and Garion as well, making it 6:2 if you count them.
Consensus is never merely a simple vote. However, how many people support different opinions and approaches does matter. There's virtual unanimity among the administrators who have commented so far that the policy generally supports Iman (model).
As I have said all along, even if we decide one way now, I think that you could potentially change people's minds, and a friendly ongoing discussion on the point is fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I support Iman (model) as the classic disambiguated form of the commonly used name. (I imagine very few readers will even know her surname. When I visited the dismabiguation page, I at first thought she wasn't even mentioned there, because she's listed under her full name, which looks very unfamiliar to me.) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine Jackson's video[edit]

Isn't the girl in this Jermaine Jackson's video Iman?-- (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

She clearly shows in this video and there's no need for further sources to this.-- (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


I have restored the page back to its original state. Much of it was restructured in a highly condensed and uninformative way without prior discussion per WP:BRD; the quotebox citing the famous phrase by Yves Saint Laurent ("Iman is my dream woman") was also removed. Iman's entrance into modeling was likewise reduced to "a tribeswoman who'd been discovered while tending cattle and sheep in a Kenyan game preserve". In reality, the photographer Peter Beard suggested that she pose as a sort of stereotypical African "jungle woman", and she played along with the plan for a few months (although there aren't any jungles in Somalia & her dad was a diplomat). The edit also played down her Islamic faith by highlighting that "she does not practice the religion", when, in fact, she is a believing Muslim who has struggled throughout her modeling career to balance her Islamic values with her modeling obligations [1]. Moreover, the edit attempted to pigeon-hole Iman as a "black African" model ("she quickly became the first black African to be widely embraced by American fashion"). This is a highly subjective & dubious assertion given the fact that she is Somali, a unique people who don't share any particularly great biological affinity with so-called "black Africans" and who have very different traditions of descent and self-perceptions ([2], [3], [4]). In fact, the article that phrase was supposedly sourced to indicates that Iman was "the first African to be widely embraced by American fashion" [5]. The edit also indicated that "Iman's early success sparked criticism among African Americans, who argued that black American models were being overlooked in favor of an "exotic" African"; however, this ignores the overall point of the ref that Iman was so quickly embraced by the fashion world in the first place because, due to her unique physical characteristics, she more readily met the prevailing white beauty standards than the African American models did. For this, she was actually likened by those same African American critics to a dark-skinned white woman: "Still, her looks sparked criticism among some African Americans, who were critical that home-grown beauties had been overlooked in favor of an "exotic" African. In 1976, Marcia Ann Gillespie, then the editor in chief of Essence, stingingly wrote in her column that Iman " ... looks like a white woman dipped in chocolate."" The edit also reduced Iman's many charitable endeavors from an entire section to one line, and claimed that she married her first Somali husband (described as a "boyfriend") solely "in a fit of rebellion", when she actually states quite plainly in her autobiography that she loved him deeply but felt that she would be unable to pursue her modeling passion while being a housewife. In short, the edits were highly POV, selectively quoted and unnecessary; the article was (and is) already well-written & formatted. Middayexpress (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Editor's response[edit]

"Much of it was restructured […] without prior discussion per WP:BRD;"

I apologize for not reaching consensus first. I wasn't aware that was a necessity.

"the quotebox citing the famous phrase by Yves Saint Laurent ("Iman is my dream woman") was also removed."

A five-word sentence does not need a quotebox, it was integrated in the appropriate sentence.

"Iman's entrance into modeling was likewise reduced to "a tribeswoman who'd been discovered while tending cattle and sheep in a Kenyan game preserve"."

That is quoted almost literally from the Los Angeles Times, a more than reputable source. Btw, it reduced nothing, as there previously was no mention of her entrance.

"The edit also played down her Islamic faith by highlighting that "she does not practice the religion""

That was quoted, again almost literally, from an interview with Iman herself ("Does Iman still identify as a Muslim, the faith in which she was raised? 'I was never a practicing Muslim,' she tells me. 'But I do consider myself a Muslim.'"). For the record, I added that because she herself stated it, it wasn't a moral judgement or anything, I'm not religious myself.

"Moreover, the edit attempted to pigeon-hole Iman as a "black African" model [...] This is a highly subjective & dubious assertion given the fact that she is Somali, a unique people who don't share any particularly great biological affinity with so-called "black Africans""

Iman IDENTIFIES as black, therefore she IS black in the eyes of Wikipedia. Her great success in the industry was remarkable precisely BECAUSE she's black (and African).

"The edit also indicated that "Iman's early success sparked criticism among African Americans, who argued that black American models were being overlooked in favor of an "exotic" African"; however, this ignores the overall point of the ref that Iman was so quickly embraced by the fashion world in the first place because, due to her unique physical characteristics, she more readily met the prevailing white beauty standards than the African American models did."

…that is exactly the point I made in the article. She was the first African to be embraced by the industry BECAUSE of her "white girl dipped in chocolate" appearance: "With her tall, thin frame, long neck, fine features and naturally straight hair,[2][5] Iman possessed the characteristics of beauty that were valued by the predominantly white fashion industry,[2] and she quickly became the first black African to be widely embraced by American fashion.[2]"

"The edit also reduced Iman's many charitable endeavors from an entire section to one line,"

That's because the "entire section" is in reality just one line ("[…] Iman is also actively involved in a number of charitable endeavors. She is currently a spokesperson for the Keep a Child Alive program, and works closely with, among others, the Children's Defense Fund.[9]"). Iman quitting her De Beers contract because they're assholes is not a humanitarian act (just like Beyonce donating her Kaddafi money isn't).

"and claimed that she married her first Somali husband (described as a "boyfriend") solely "in a fit of rebellion"

I took that from the Gale Contemporary Black Biography[6], which I apparently forgot to add as a citation: "Iman had married, in rebellion, her teenage sweetheart. Iman knew the marriage was a mistake, so that when Peter called with the offer to go to America to become a model, she leapt at the chance--more to escape the marriage than to become a model."

"the article was (and is) already well-written & formatted."

It really isn't---it's a MESS, and for the following reasons:

  • The citations follow NO guidelines (usually it's just </ref/>[link]</ref/>)
  • Excessive use of headers (e.g. a "Video games" section for a minor voice role in ONE game
  • Sycophantic language that does not belong on Wikipedia ("a pioneer", "instant success")
  • An incomplete filmography
  • Categories that do not apply to the subject ("David Bowie", "Contestant in a reality TV show")
  • Irrelevant details ("handbags with turquoise embroidery and sequins" or whatever)

My edits fixed all of these problems. I really feel like we need to reach a consensus here, because I didn't waste an hour of my life on this article to have it reverted to a crap version. I propose that we revert back to my version, but:

  • The YSL quotebox will be reinstated.
  • All mention of Iman's blackness will be removed.
  • Mention of her first marriage being out of rebellion will be removed.
  • Mention of whether or not she practices her religion will be removed.

What say you?

Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, you still don't seem to understand what is wrong with your edits. For starters, the Yves Saint Laurent quote is famous and so is he i.e. it's a famous quote from one of the most celebrated designers (""My dream woman is Iman." So said no less an arbiter than Yves Saint Laurent." [7]; "Iman was not only a supermodel... she was a muse for many prominent designers including Yves Saint-Laurent (1936 – 2008) who famously claimed: "My dream woman is Iman"." [8]). So yes, it deserves its own quotebox, and you have not provided a satisfactory reason much less a policy indicating why it doesn't. Second, Iman's entrance into modeling was indeed already discussed ("While still at university, Iman was discovered by American photographer Peter Beard, and subsequently moved to the United States to begin a modeling career. Her first modeling assignment was for Vogue a year later in 1976."); it just didn't mention the "jungle woman" charade because it was sparked by one tabloid article: "Her arrival was a media event thanks to an article in a New York tabloid that portrayed her as a tribal woman from the African jungle that Beard had stumbled upon. That wasn't even close to the truth considering Iman, the daughter of a diplomat, attended boarding schools and spoke five languages" [9]. It was also a trivial footnote in her career and was so patently ridiculous, particularly given her actual background (there is no sheep herding in the jungle and there are no jungles in Somalia). Third, Iman abandoning her contract with the De Beers diamond company because of its alleged mistreatment of the Bushmen is indeed not humanitarian work (nor did I add that material), but that does not make the section any less relevant, especially given all of the other charitable work she has done. Fourth, Iman does not identify as "black" in the way that you are presumably referring to (i.e. as a racial category). When she uses the term, she is referring to having dark skin only, just as many dark-skinned Dravidians use the term. Somalis indeed do not share much biological affinity with so-called "Black Africans", and their dark skin is due to localized adaptation to a tropical environment, not to shared descent with Black Africans: "The dark skin of Somalis and Ghanaians, for instance, indicates that they evolved under the same selective force (a sunny climate). But that's all it shows. It does not show that they are any more closely related in the sense of sharing more genes than either is to Greeks. Calling Somalis and Ghanaians "black" therefore sheds no further light on their evolutionary history and implies -- wrongly -- that they are more closely related to each other than either is to someone of a different "race"" [10]. Contrary to what you have indicated, Wikipedia also does not have a policy on "blackness". In fact, the ethnicity ascriptions on the Wiki bios are an extreme source of contention, and specifically because they are so subjective (c.f. [11]). Fifth, (including its "Gale Contemporary Black Biography"), is unfortunately not a reliable source. The website uses a lot of open access references for its material (such as blogs and wikis, including Wikipedia), often reproducing the text verbatim, and it shows. Sixth, the article is actually quite well-written and formatted. Your edit erroneously placed Iman's appearance in the Omikron video game under the Filmography table, when of course it isn't a film or video. It deserves its own section. The term "pioneer" is also unfortunately not a "sycophantic" descriptor given the fact that a) that is how Iman's role in modeling is consistently described [12], and b) she is indeed a pioneering figure in that particular field. The handbag details can be removed as they are admittedly minutae. The David Bowie category can too (although, as his wife of about 20 years now and mother of his latest born, that indeed makes Iman immediately relevant to him). The filmography table is also not meant for an exhaustive listing of everything that Iman has appeared in (which would be an article unto itself); that is what the Internet Movie Database is for. Refer to WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Middayexpress (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"3.2 Global Chic" = GENDERED[edit]

"After some cajoling" has no place in an article about a business woman and entrepreneur. Edit-editor-editing (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^