Talk:Queen Rania of Jordan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

  • Per Wikipedia Convention on naming consorts, this should be renamed. Gryffindor 01:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The Arabic name has been added. - Cybjorg 12:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Rania's ancestry

I was amazed to learn that she is palestinian - she doesn't look arabic at all, more like an italian. It would have useful if someone posted more detailed information about her parents.Keverich1 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What did you think Arab people looked like? South Asians lol? 24.184.166.238 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Neel

Here you go >> http://ethnicelebs.com/queen-rania-of-jordan --88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Jordanian Royal Family Table

I find this addition fairly annoying and pretty useless. Not only is it overly large, but it also screws up the format quite nastily. I would like to see the template retooled and replaced, or removed. - Cybjorg 18:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I agree with this idea.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Image:Queen Rania.jpg

This image is supposedly free, but how can it be when the uploader disclaims ownership and says (s)he scanned it from a poster common in Amman, which may or may not be free? Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If you've ever driven throughout the streets of Amman, you realize very quickly that such images don't have any copyright properties and are free for public use or duplication. - Cybjorg 16:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean that the copyright holders have disclaimed copyright or explicitly granted permission for the images to be used. Under current copyright law, any image remains under copyright and presumably has all rights reserved unless there's an explicit disclaimer. Being distributed widely doesn't count as a disclaimer, let alone an explicit one. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Free image

There is a free image at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/images/20060509-5_p050906sc-0545jpg-1-515h.html that could be uploaded and added to the article. 140.247.248.112 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The link is dead.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

article name

This article really needs to remove "Queen" and revert to name only as per WP:MOS about honorifics-Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom doesn't have her queenly title, and Akihito isn't referred to imperially in his namespace. Even the king's article doesn't have "King" in front of it. Chris 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The same thing applies to a number of the articles about royal children and members of the royal family. — Emiellaiendiay 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
When and why did the honorific reappear in the article title? Writegeist (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

philanthropy

I don't know, but I assume it is appropriate to call Queen Rania a philanthropist -- and I think that should be included in the header. It surely is a better introduction, and speaks more about her identity than the fact that she's someone's wife. Sure, that also should be in the header.. but the current introduction just doesn't seem right. Eshcorp 15:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

so why only mention the so called "greatness of her work" and ignore what people in Jordan talk about all the time, the corruption cases that involve her brother and family, her un-real spending for a country that is consumed with poverty... the homeless, the beggers in the streets of Amman..... the many bussiness in Amman that opend up to benefit AL-Yassin family. where did the money come from????

And the header should not include philanthropy, the whole page should be less queer if you ask me...

Suggested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Queen Rania of Jordan → Rania, Queen of Jordan -(Discuss) I think we should make some difference between the present consorts and their predecessors (Queen Noor of Jordan for example). Queen Noor is styled HM Queen Noor of Belgium, while Rania is HM The Queen. As Rania is the queen and Noor is a queen, her article should be at "Rania, Queen of Jordan" (just like the article about Prince Charles is at "Charles, Prince of Wales", and the articles about his sons are at "Prince X of Wales". If this move succedes, I will also move Queen Sofia of Spain, Queen Paola of Belgium, Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Sonja of Norway, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support See above for my comment. Surtsicna (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCNT#Consorts of sovereigns I don't personally feel it needs changing. Though if you want to propose the form Name, Queen of Place you should do so at WT:NCNT to get more input from interested parties. - dwc lr (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Support I agree a change would make sense. - dwc lr (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Rania, Queen of Jordan → Queen Rania of Jordan — This page was moved to a form that does not conform to the existing convention on the naming of queen consorts, and with no clear consensus for the move. It sets a precedent (as the original proposer correctly pointed out) which in my opinion will result in the creation of several unhelpful article names in place of the sensible ones that are currently in use. Deb (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC) — Deb (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support I don't think we should treat present queens differently from their predecessors; we have articles on them all, back to Emma of Normandy, and should treat them in parallel. If we are going to distinguish, our present conventions for doing so would give Queen Rania of Jordan, as opposed to Rania of Jordan for one no longer living. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support until we make an agreement. I am saying that we should treat present queens differently from their living predecessors. Their deceased predecessors are obviously treated differently since they are historical figures. Since articles about the living queens need to include their queenly title, present consorts should be at {Name}, Queen of {Place} while the living widows of kings should be at Queen {Name} of {Place}. The article about Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark is not titled "Prince Henrik of Denmark", is it? Surtsicna (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

It does not seem obvious to me that we should use a different system for deceased and living queens. It seems still less obvious that we should use a different system for queens dowager than queens consort. In general, when we refer to a person by title, we use his highest and best known title; if Edward VIII of the United Kingdom were still alive, should we insist on calling him the Duke of Windsor, and leave Edward VIII as a redirect until his death?

As a non-hypothetical case, we use Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg even now that he has retired, just like his son, the present sovereign.

I do not think we should ever call the Prince Consort of Denmark Prince Henrik of Denmark. He's not, he will not be, and English is never likely to call him so. After all, we use Albert, Prince Consort, as one of the least bad of our bad choices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Jean's case is a bit tricky. His article's title indicates that he is still the sovereign of Luxembourg. I know that Henrik will never be Prince Henrik of Denmark (unless, maybe, if he outlives his wife), that's why I compared him with Queen Rania of Jordan: if Henrik is Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark, then Rania should be Rania, Queen of Jordan. That's simple, isn't it? Lets continue this discussion here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
No, it indicates that he was sovereign of Luxembourg; so does his mother's article: Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. We are an encyclopedia; all ages are immediate to us. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Queen consorts are not, of course, sovereigns. Just a small point. Deb (talk) 11:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
But the same rules should apply. We title living former sovereigns under the style they used as sovereign; by analogy, we should title living former queens consort under the style we used as sovereign - after all, that's what we do for the dead in both cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Requested move 3

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved -- Aervanath (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen Rania of Jordan → Rania Al-Abdullah — There is no need for Queen thing. Simply, per WP:NCP: "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", in this case, there has been only one Rania Al-Abdullah, and no confusion is expected. Please see the article name in other wikis (Arabic one for example). — OsamaK 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Queen with Mrs Bush

Could anyone write a caption for thumb|this image of the Queen and Laura Bush? It seems like a good image for the Youth section (I could be wrong, but it does seem to be about children) but an image without a proper caption is pointless. Where was the image taken? When was it taken? Surtsicna (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant info

The article contains too much irrelevant info about the organizations she sponsors. This is an article about her, not about her foundations. I will try to remove such info as soon as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Racism

It might be worth to point out that she refused her children book to be translated to Hebrew. TFighterPilot (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Source? Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Maan, Haaretz TFighterPilot (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

TFighterPilot - You are not up-to-date on this "story". Haaretz printed a retraction, *after* the unsourced story filtered round the world doing sufficient damage against the Queen. Do check Haaretz for their retraction statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.100.147 (talk) 10:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Even without the retraction, I don't see how this would fall under "racism". People refuse to support certain regimes because of personal political reasons and boycott the said regimes via whatever means they choose. Satanstorm (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This should be left out until we have more reliable information.--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Image from Wikicommons

Since this is the 2nd time I have added this photo to this article, I am opening up the issue of which image should be used so that a consensus on this issue can be reached. There are several images of Queen Rania in Wikicommons. I prefer this photo as the main image for this article because it is 1) it is a high quality Official Portrait of the Queen, and 2) it is properly oriented so that the Queen is facing the article's content. Wcheck (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarificaion needed in biography

In the first section of the article, it lists her birth and education in Kuwait, and then her attendance at University in Cairo, and then it says "Upon her graduation...[she] returned to Jordan." When was she in Jordan before that time? --Tea with toast (話) 03:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Uncited: In a 2011 list of the 100 most powerfully influential women in the world, Queen Rania ranked 53rd.

In a 2011 list of the 100 most powerfully influential women in the world, Queen Rania ranked 53rd. is a line from the opening paragraph. It is not cited, but clearly demands a citation. Please remedy.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's also not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Does anybody have a source for this? Otherwise, it is subject to removal. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Reception history missing

The article appears to lack information from independent secondary sources that discuss how the subject has been received i.e. criticized or praised. NPOV requires that all viewpoints of any topic be represented fairly, proportionately, and without bias. I noticed this edit that removed information sourced from the BBC's profile. Granted, it shouldn't have been in the lead and the statement didn't really accurately reflect the source...

  • Wikipedia = "Queen Rania is the child of Palestinians, but has been criticized by Palestinians in her country for being unsympathetic."
  • BBC = "But the queen who came from a family of Palestinian origin, recently came under fire for leaving the country at a time when Israel is stepping up military operations in the West Bank and Gaza."

...but it was removed along with the BBC source with the edit summary "Removed unreferenced speculation". That is not a valid edit in my view. The information was neither unreferenced nor speculation. Poorly phrased perhaps but it was sourced to the BBC and clearly notable as far as the BBC were concerned. It would be better to include information like this, accurately paraphrased of course, along with other positive and negative commentary from independant reliable sources in the body of the article. Wikipedia:Reception is a useful guide. Sean.hoyland - talk

The BBC article also quoted a man saying the refugee camps were not happy with the Queen. You can find articles that have tribal leaders criticizing her lifestyle and calling her hypocritical. I think that word "unsympathetic" is appropriate. Underpriviledged Palestinians in Jordan sometimes criticize the Queen. It is similar to how Hamas appeals to many disenfranchised Palestinians, because Fatah is seen as corrupt.

Perhaps this dashing Sean Hoylandde fellow can come up with a better phrasing to balance the gushing lead with a slight mention of how Queen Rania is not a universally loved character. 132.160.54.162 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it WP's duty to comment on how "universally loved" a character is (and is there anyone who is "universally loved")? Alarm bells should ring when an anonymous editor wants to cherry-pick a source (for Heaven's sake, the "businessman from Amman" who may or may not have been to a refugee camp isn't even named) and then pejoratively interprets the information from that source to produce wording such as "unsympathetic", "child of", "criticized", and "drawn heat"—and then places it in the article's lede. Sorry, but the guidelines of Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Undue and Wikipedia:BLP also apply to this article. GFHandel ♬  20:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines specifically say that the opinion of someone with an account is not more valid than anyone else.

Cherry-picking is taking a quote out-of-context. I took the third sentence in the article, which said she was "underfire" for leaving the country while her ethnic cousins were in danger. That is how I got the word unsympathetic. If your house is burning and I leave town, than obviously I don't really give a fuck about you.

The article makes Queen Rania seem like a dedicated human-rights activist. She does alot, but has also drawn criticism. That is why it is mentioned in the lead. The aricle mentions a few negative things. I summarized these in the article by saying that the Palestinians of Jordan sometimes question her solidarity. It is mentioned in the source. Do I need to add several more sources to prove that the wife of an autocrat has detractors? 132.160.54.124 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No, cherry-picking is ignoring parts of a source to find the bit with which you want wish to make a point. Your bias is obvious when you write "If your house is burning and I leave town..." when the article says "She was travelling abroad in May when her own family's home town, Tulkarm, was bombed...". Should she never travel abroad—just in case something dramatic happens while she is away? Perhaps the trip was urgent or humanitarian in nature? Do you know that she didn't return soon after finding out about the events? The way you want to cherry-pick and slant the article's lede is negative and clearly in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Undue.
It is still mystifying how you can infer that she was "unsympathetic" without having more details about the events. Did you read the entire article (which you trust enough to prove your particular point)? I would suggest that someone who: visits remote villages in the kingdom, is a champion for women and children's rights, and has founded numerous charities, sounds at least a little bit sympathetic. Wouldn't you agree?
"Autocrat"? This (revealing) comment of yours goes a long way to explaining your motivations in editing this article.
"Do I need to add several sources to prove..."? Of course you do (as long as the sources are reliable)! Get it yet? At the moment, here's the only balanced observation that source allows you to add:
A 2001 BBC profile article stated that Queen Rania was criticised for travelling abroad during a time of increased military operations in the West Bank and Gaza, and quoted an unnamed businessman from Amman as saying: "Her absence inflamed feelings in the [refugee] camps". The same BBC article also pointed out that she is a champion for women and children's rights, has founded numerous charities, and is an outspoken critic of "honour killing". <ref...>
I'll leave it to others to judge how much weight to lend a ten-year-old biography (especially one that quotes an unnamed businessman as a source).
Have you considered writing a blog? The brilliant thing about a blog is that there are no other editors, rules, or guidelines—and accordingly, you can be as autocratic as you like. Good luck with that.
GFHandel ♬  22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The IP is not allowed to be here. Ignore them. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100#Modinyr and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92#Lutrinae. If they continue I will have their IP shut down. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Mr. Hoyland wants to ignore content and attack editors. Please go to the two linked AE boards and see the lies and misrepresentations Hoyland makes to get rid of editors who don't accept his often-publicized political views.

Now, about Queen Rania. One of the reasons she is unpopular in her country is BECAUSE she pushes woman's rights and children's education. Girl's schools are not universally loved in Jordan. Also, the queen's extravagent lifestyle and Western ways has drawn fire from the conservative camps.

Some Palestinians love her, but some don't think she does enough for them. The quote from the businessman was chosen by the reportor not because it is some random assholes' opinion, but because the quote serves the story. It gives it balance, instead of it being a glowing review. And it represents a true fact that not everyone loves the queen.

But the man's name couldn't be used because criticising the King and Queen in Jordan can get you thrown in prison, maybe even secret prison. I didn't call the King of Jordan an autocrat because I have an axe to grind. It is a truthful statement. He is an absolute monarch who controls the courts, legislator, military, etc.

I know that you thought Queen Rania was great on The View. But I think a light remark on her detractors would be appropriate. Even Jesus's page has a few words about how not everyone thinks he's so great.

So I've offered to change unsympathetic, but you don't have a serious suggestion. You want the lead to talk about charities and visits to remote villiages in Range Rovers. I think it should be balanced. So, how about...

Although Queen Rania is popular both in Jordan and abroad, some Jordanians have expressed reservations about her genuiness. In addition to the BBC article, since you want to take the irregular step of using two, stacked sources, we can reference http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/15/bedouin-accuse-jordan-queen-corruption 132 141.190.32.9 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose including anything from this diatribe in the lede. My suggestion was the definition of balanced, however I didn't suggest it should be placed in the lede. The information from your new source has already been used in the article—in the proper place (i.e. not in the lede). Even a cursory glance at the references indicate the sources that show a positive and charitable side to her character and actions outweigh the detracting sources by dozens to one. Have you read Wikipedia:Undue yet? From what I've seen so far, the point-of-view you are pushing is not "significant", and as the policy says "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". GFHandel ♬  03:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
GFHandel, banned means banned. You don't need to respond to the IP and I suggest you don't engage with them. They aren't allowed to be here. I will be filing another arbitration enforcement report in due course. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Queen Sonja of Norway which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Could she have Samaritan Ancestry?

Her Palestinians parents are from a city near Nablus. The Wikipedia page for the Samaritan says there is allot of evidence many Palestinians of Nabulus are descended from Samaritans who had been converted to Islam long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.176.92 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Labelled for reuse images

According to Google Images the following images are labelled for reuse.


--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Archive

Can we please get an archive in here?--88.104.137.223 (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queen Rania of Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queen Rania of Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queen Rania of Jordan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Queen Rania of Jordan. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Queen Rania of Jordan. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hijab

The above article uses QRoJ as an example of women who alternate between wearing and not wearing the hijab; however this article says nothing on the matter. Is there room for it here, possibly as part of a "Reception2 section or something? -viz, how she's viewed around the world. I assume there's stuff available on that? >SerialNumber54129...speculates 12:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it from that article as it seemed like WP:OR about a WP:BLP. A reception section is a good idea to be looked into. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was unsourced, many thanks. As to a section for that kind of thing, I'm just assuming that it's quite a ?radical thing that will have, shall we say, attracted comment. But of course it could also be a BLP minefield. Cheers, Emir, carry on  :) >SerialNumber54129...speculates 13:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It looks like she has spoken about the Hijab [1] but it doesn't look like sources describe her as someone who who alternate between wearing and not wearing the hijab. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
What article? She almost never wears the hijab. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
It was in the article Hijab with a caption like women who alternate between wearing and not wearing the hijab, but I removed this from that article. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Rania_of_Jordan/Archive_1&oldid=1156825051"