Talk:Sawsan Al Majali

Untitled
Welcome to Sawsan Al Majali's talk page!

I have mainly translated her Wikipedia page from Arabic to English. I'll mention below how she meets the Notability Requirements. Salukk (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Notability Requirements
Salukk (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Here's how Sawsan Al Majali meets the notability requirements: Al Majali served as Director of the Queen Zein Al Sharaf Institute for Development (ZENID) and Deputy Executive Director for Strategic Planning at the Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development (JOHUD).
 * 1) The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

Al Majali meetsWP:POLITICIAN as an elected member of Jordan's national governing body (Senate). QuakerSquirrel (talk) 16:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Primary Sources tag
you tagged this as relying too heavily on primary sources. Can you clarify some what the metric is so we can improve the article accordingly? For example, her interview is referenced three times, but it is summarized & discussed in Ammon News, which seems like a secondary source to me. Her profile pages at the Senate & the college -- are they considered primary sources or non-independent secondary sources? They don't provide controversial information, but just information about her education & work history on a reputable site. Can you help us identify the specific issues so that we can work to get the tag removed? has also done some copyediting -- if you feel that the grammar tag could be removed, that would be great, or highlight the areas of concern for us. Thank you. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi rather than me trying to explain it and no doubt making a mess of things, may I refer you to this guidance document which you will probably find more helpful: WP:PSTS. But FWIW, my understanding is that any publication which is offering a first-hand observation or comment, including any where the source is 'close' to the subject, is considered primary; I think that covers most of the sources cited here. And interviews, even when published in secondary sources like newspapers, can be considered primary, because much of the content comes from the subject themselves (and may or may not be subject to verification before publishing). Hope this helps, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I had read that page & it didn't help me much when I was thinking about your critique earlier. There is also this page which explains that secondary sources may or may not be independent. Part of my issue is that the type of sources we have used (simple biographical information from reputable institutions associated with the subject) aren't really covered in any of the examples. I would also argue that the article about the interview is still a secondary source, because it involves some interpretation, such as "nor did she mortgage her relationship to work or people to her father's inheritance, because she believes that competence is assumed to be the basis and the most important criterion..." (Ammon Interview). I would argue that's an interpretation & synthesis of what she actually said and thus a secondary source. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * if you want to remove the primary sources tag, I won't have a problem with it. (In any case, you don't need my permission to do things, I hold no authority here whatsoever. Although thanks for checking in.) Of course, removing it doesn't stop somebody adding it back later, but at least you know it won't be me. :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)