Talk:Nahed Hattar

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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Jordan Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jordan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jordan 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.JordanWikipedia:WikiProject JordanTemplate:WikiProject JordanJordan articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks YOU can help with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Freedom of speech

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Photograph

Photograph of Nahed Hattar is available in the Arabic Commons, how can I bring it to the English Commons? https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Nahed.Hater.JPEG --Flycatchr 09:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

Some sources say that he was Atheist, others say that he was Christian. Any resolution on which one is true? Inter&anthro (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link from the Independent claiming he's in an Atheist both in the title and body. Will change article accordingly. --Flycatchr 06:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the topic under a new headline... I'm now wondering whether "Religion" is appropriate since he's an atheist? --Flycatchr 07:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something I think worth mentioning, Jordan doesn't recognise atheism (just yet), and everyone has their religion at birth stated in their birth certificate and identification cards. So when someone is identified as being either Christian or Muslim, they're being identified by their religion at birth (without necessarily taking into consideration current beliefs or lack thereof). Is this worth mentioning/elaborating in the article? --Flycatchr 07:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hattar was an Atheist and clearly stated that in his final statement. He also published an article Titled "To retrieve Allah" in which he said (My translation from Arabic):"The leftist that I am needs god's light and guidance but I can't find him", and ended the article saying "I saw god among the mourners in Chokri Belaid's funeral, I saw him in Tahrir Square trying to break the shackles".BornTwiceJP (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The caricature

Shouldn't we include the caricature that was used as an excused to murdered him? http://www.clarionproject.org/news/jordanian-satirist-arrested-cartoon-mocking-isis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.154.23.74 (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we can because the IP rights are unclear, especially in this case where the person behind the caricature has not been identified (we don't know who did it). --Flycatchr 10:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flycatchr: The guy who did this caricature is an Egyptian atheist that went by the name M80-رسومات دينية ساخرة. He closed all his social media accounts after the murder in fear of tracing. I knew that guy personally, and I do not think he would say no to anyone publishing his work. my word is not binding to anyone though. SammyMajed (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Article

@Makeandtoss: Let's keep subheadings for ease of reading? --Flycatchr 20:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Flycatchr: They are overused, especially in such a short not really notable article. --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: Ok sure we can keep it like that for now. Though I do think the article is quite notable as the event has gained worldwide media attention. --Flycatchr 20:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For two or three days, as usual.. :) --Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:) --Flycatchr 21:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undue

WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." I fail to see how "that is not what WP:UNDUE means". A number of Algerian figures accused the government of being an accomplice in this murder, now their views are held in high regard? Who exactly shares this view? Its a minority view point that does not deserve a place in this article, which is a biography.

I also fail to see how your comprehension skills work. WP:ONUS "this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." @Edwardx: Not once have you demonstrated a willingness to discuss the issue, not engaging in consensus building is a sign of disruptive behavior. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even better ignoring discussion, see you at ANI. --Makeandtoss (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE does not apply because this petition does not represent a minority view. The HRW position summarised immediately above is just as critical of the Jordanian government, and there is no mention of anyone supporting the actions of the Jordanian government. Nowhere is it stated, or could it be reasonably inferred that the petition "accused the government of being an accomplice in this murder" - using a straw man argument is not how we should be seeking to build consensus.

By the way, this particular petition has been signed by three notable Algerians, two notable Tunisians (one only has a page on French Wikipedia), amongst others, and there is coverage of it in at least two French reliable sources, both of which are cited.

Building consensus is not best served by waiting for a mere three hours, and then raising this at ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_behaviour. Edwardx (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Critical of the government in what way?? Everyone condemned the blasphemy laws, but " refusal to protect Hattar despite knowing he was under threat"?? Mere three hours? You have ignored to discuss for three times.

Raising that at ANI is not for this dispute but for your behaviour. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with what you restored, treating opinions as facts. "condemns the Jordanian government's refusal to protect Hattar despite knowing he was under threat". WP:YESPOV Makeandtoss (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The HRW section is obviously critical of the Jordanian government. As for "refusal", "failure" might be a better choice of language, but I'm not fluent in French.

It is self-evident from the header, "Reactions", and from the language used, that it is an opinion. Edwardx (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said HRW was not critical. Claiming that the gov "refused"/"failed" to protect him would be presenting an extremely minority view point held by not so notable figures and amplifying it in a way that could be misinterpreted. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From your "Critical of the government in what way??", I inferred that you questioned how critical HRW might be. I don't see how HRW are significantly less critical of the government than the petitioners. The rest of your comment could be seen as WP:OR - perhaps you are the one who is misinterpreting? I'm not planning on commenting further as I can't see what else I can add. Hopefully, others will contribute to this discussion. Edwardx (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is clear. Their opinion is not shared by anyone, and so their opinion does not belong here. There had been hundreds of statements of condemnation from a wide range of Arab figures, I fail to see why these Maghribis should be given more importance than others. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death Penalty?

Can anyone update the article, as the assassin had been executed? I am not sure about that nor do I have an internet connection to look up sources. SammyMajed (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he recieved the death sentence, which is unlikely to be performed, in other words lifetime imprisonment... --Makeandtoss (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. good riddance. SammyMajed (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SammyMajed: Lol he was executed this dawn, that was completely unexpected. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: good bloody riddance. last thing we need here in jordan is ISISy people. SammyMajed (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]