Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan

Samia Suluhu Hassan has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 21, 2023	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 9, 2024	Good article nominee	Listed

A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 18, 2021.

Current status: Good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Africa: Tanzania High‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article was created or improved during the "African 10,000 Challenge", which started in 1 September 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!
	This page was expanded or created as part of The Africa Destubathon, October/November 2016.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Loves Women Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women in Africa 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.Wiki Loves WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves WomenTemplate:WikiProject Wiki Loves WomenWiki Loves Women articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Socialism

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women in Green: Around the World in 31 Days

This article was created or improved during the Around the World in 31 Days GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2023. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles

Untitled section

Isn't there a better picture? Pictures of people with their mouth open always look bad. Do wiki editors want to shame her or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.42 (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think that the picture looks particularly bad, the German Wikipedia has another one that you might like better.93.240.89.237 (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is tough as The Government of Tanzania does not have an official copyright policy. Therefore all portrait pictures taken of her through government resources are copyright. Just have to hope she takes some good pictures when in Europe or the United States. Sputink (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Political stance

Please, if you have knowledge of it, help create and complete a section about her political positioning. We currently only have her path to presidency, nothing on what she stands for and her political vision. Yug (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. We see "female" this and that no less than 8 times in the text but almost zilch about her political views as running mate and supporter of her predecessor. Is she following his policy of LGBT suppression or not? Days have passed and somehow policies are not as notable as "female"? Martindo (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She has said negative things about LGBT as usual but on the ground it's more denial and hasn't persecuted anybody for being gay Nlivataye (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan or Suluhu ?

CNN uses Hassan as a last name here: [1] Are we incorrect? Rmhermen (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters as well: [2] [3] [4] Rmhermen (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rmhermen: I'm not certain on this one, but I don't think it's correct to use Hassan as a "surname" in this case. It's more of an additional name, while Suluhu is her principal surname. There could be a case for moving the article to the longer name, as it does seem to occur frequently in sources including those from East Africa, but I don't think we should switch the later mentions in the body of the article from Suluhu to Hassan. — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per this discussion and the one at [5], I've made a WP:BOLD decision move the article to Samia Suluhu Hassan, amending the ITN text accordingly. My two-pence-worth, based on what I can see in sources would be that:
- Her full name is certainly Samia Suluhu Hassan. A large majority of sources do call her by that full name on first mention, including many in Tanzania itself and in East Africa.
- My suspicion is that, despite the above, her "surname" (or the closest equivalent thereto) and the name by which we should refer to her outside of the title, is still Suluhu. If this theory is correct, the "Hassan" would be a sort of bolt-on to the end of her name, similar to how Cristiano Ronaldo's full name is actually "Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro". This theory matches sources such as [6] and those mentioned above (and including her Twitter account) which don't include Hassan at all. The only sources I can see that are calling her just "Hassan" seem to be US, Australian and European sources, and I suspect they've simply got the naming convention wrong.
- I therefore recomment that we *stick to using Suluhu* in the main body of this page.
As usual, if anyone objects to any of this, then they may revert me or challenge me accordingly. — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Judging by her photo, and indeed referenced in the article, Suluhu is a Muslim. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the "Personal life" section?--TrottieTrue (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

The 6th President of Tanzania.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Samia Suluhu Hassan official.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thebiguglyalien and thank you for working on this interesting and important article. I'll have the first main part of my review out to you in about 24 hours, but I thought you might like to review the diff of changes since your last work on the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just one more item for now. Unexpected personal life issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Review now on hold. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - The seven-day hold period (+ a couple grace days) has passed without response from the nominator. I'm closing the nomination as failed. This article can definitely be a GA with just a little more work, and resolving the below issues would go a long way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - A little late, but I've made the recommended changes and am now renominating. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
One issue below

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
One issue below
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Lead

Infobox has a marriage year that isn't cited or supported in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a source in the body.
Looks like the official website link in the infobox is down and that it has been down for years. Remove? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed from the infobox and added an archived link under external links.

Early life and education

Do "short-courses" and "joint-programme" need the hyphens? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
I think SNHU is one of those institution names that doesn't usually get a preceding "the". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.

Images

Does File:Samia Suluhu.jpg's license look right to you? I can't tell where they got the CC license info from. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the image and flagged it on Commons.
The last image caption refers to the article subject as "Samia Hassan". Is there a reason to break the consistency? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not. Fixed.
"official visit" which shows up in the map caption, has a somewhat jargony meaning in international relations. If the map is showing more than official visits, can the caption be reworded? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded.

Political career

"In 2000, Suluhu decided to run for public office. She was elected": the cited source doesn't mention an election. Do others? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded and added a new source.
Can you access Mwakyusa's Daily News piece. Neither the url nor the archive url are working for me. Mind emailing me a copy? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced it with the identical AllAfrica link, which was also in the article as its own source for some reason.

Ascension and swearing in

"Suluhu said condolences for Magufuli's death" is awkward. Could this be cut entirely? The national mourning declaration seems a more serious statement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
"the third Muslim after ..." Is there a reason to mention the predecessors for this distinction but not for "second Zanzibari"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed by someone else.
Cited NYT source says became the only female head of government in Africa at swearing-in. Worth mentioning? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.
"She was one of only two" → "She became one of only two" for future-proofing reasons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.

Presidential administration

"newly risen" → how about "newly arisen" or just "new"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.
"Besides that, she has also" → "She has also". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.
Per the cited source, it looks like The Royal Tour premiered at the Guggenheim in New York. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed entirely as it's not really relevant.

Style of governance

Can you please review the section for neutrality when it comes to opinions/analysis that don't have enough attribution. The first example is "has been contrasted ... Commentators have described". Something like "Writers for Al Jazeera and New Internationalist have contrasted ..." could work, and imagine other parts of the section could be similarly fixed up. Other vague-ish phrases might themselves be supported by the sources and need no change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the recommended change and added a source to another part of the section.

Non-GA-criteria items

Fixing the issues below is not required for a GA pass. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed one duplicate link. A review for more duplicates or overlinking in general might be worthwhile. There's a script for highlighting duplicate links that you may already be familiar with. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article could do with a MOS:JOBTITLES capitalization review. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am picking up review of this second nomination. I was also the reviewer at Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1, which was closed due to nominator inactivity. Thebiguglyalien is back at it, and I'm excited to see this head toward a likely pass. I have to start with a review of the changes made per GA1, and I'll have some feedback on that soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putting this on hold. No major issues yet, and I'll have the last nitpicks out within a week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A pass. Congrats! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review tracker

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A clear pass.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
All issues addressed in GA1 plus a few small copyedits.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
Spot checks in both reviews came up clean

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Spot checks in both reviews came up clean
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
All issues identified in GA1 and below have been addressed
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Items from GA1

The changes made in response to the issues brought up in GA1 all look good. The only lingering item is the neutrality of §Style of governance. I brought up the first example, ""has been contrasted ...", and that has now been fixed, but I think more works is needed in the section. There are a few opinion statements, cited to opinion sources, stated sort of vaguely in wiki-voice. The next example would be "Suluhu is instead compared ...", which is cited to an opinion piece in the BBC. This should probably be attributed. I can enumerate all of the remaining issues, but you may want to get a jumpstart on your own re-work while I work through the other sections. If you'd prefer to wait, that's also fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked it a little bit, hopefully it looks better now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will have a look soon. Do you have a copy of "Tanzania: Samia Suluhu Hassan - a Tough Journey From Activism to Politics" you could email me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The archive link should be of a non-paywalled version. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A definite improvement. Is "A sense of distrust has remained among the opposition, amplified by the persecution they experienced under her predecessor" the best way to summarize the AP source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded the sentence to make it a little more nuanced in line with the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

avoidance of criticism?

I'm new to the topic but preparing this article for the catalan wikipedia, it seems like, despite generally improving the state of the country, there is still lots of problems and questionable governance.

There is an important conflict/topic not being addressed in this article.

- https://witnessradio.org/urgent-alert-tanzanian-government-on-a-rampage-against-indigenous-people/ - https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/blog/epic-tanzania-tour-sportswashing-abuses-maasai

Also, I have the feeling that this article is avoiding or minimizing criticism... and thus offering a biased view.

- https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/africa/east-africa-the-horn-and-great-lakes/tanzania/report-tanzania/ - https://www.amnistia.org/en/news/2023/08/24576/tanzania-detained-critics-of-uae-port-deal-must-be-immediately-released

I may include this information in the article if you consider it appropriate. Sorneguer (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is not to document every negative thing written about a person. The article as it stands summarizes the most commonly written things about Suluhu Hassan. It looks like you went out of your way to find negative coverage solely for the sake of adding negative coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]