Talk:Zein al-Sharaf bint Jamil

Requested move

 * 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) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal → Zein Al-Sharaf Talal - (Discuss) - She is not the current queen consort (and she is not the queen dowager either), so we don't need "Queen" in the title. Many examples to quote, but some examples that are currently on my mind are Juliana of the Netherlands (not Queen Juliana of the Netherlands), Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (not Queen Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon), Grace Kelly (not Princess Grace) etc. (Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Survey
Move or Don't move followed by reason and ~

Move Surtsicna (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move with caveat: have we determined "Zein al-Sharaf Talal" to be her premarital name? With the English language, there is obviously a lot more familiarity with European names and European royalty. Talal also appears as her husband's forename and I cannot claim familiarity with Middle Eastern names. Charles 20:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Stay i personally believe it should stay, a queen should be titled a queen on here weather they are a reigning queen or not but i know i will be out numbered and people will use the silly wikipedia "rules". If its move it should be moved to Zein al-Sharaf Talal as that is her name, Talal is her husbands name when Jordanian royalty marry it is custom for them to take there husbands name as there surname so it souldnt matter what her name was before then as she wasn't known before she was married and it is considered inpolite and possibley rude to refer to a married jordanian royal using her maiden surname. AliaBuhler (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Our naming conventions are not "rude", they are in fact recognition of status. Read how they are worded before you pass such unwarranted judgement, please. Charles 20:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I understand your concerns, AliaBuhler, but the naming conventions for royalty must be followed. The instance of "Queen" doesn't appear at all in the titles. Impertinence is not intended, but our conventions help standardise royal names throughout the world. Our aim is not to be rude, but to build an encyclopedia; and as Wikipedia is not censored, we must abide by the naming rules or article titles will fail in their purpose. I hope this clears it up. Best, PeterSymonds | talk  20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support move The current naming suggests that she is still living, which is not the case. The name Zein al-Sharaf Talal seems to incorporate both her pre-marital and marital names. So it should be all that is needed as a search term. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support If she is actually called Zein al-Sharaf Talal, we should call her that. We don't include Queen because we don't need to; if it is useful to do so in article text, we can link to "Queen Zein al-Sharaf Talal", but this way we can link to her, easily and with second nature, when talking about her before her husband succeeded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
As Charles said, our naming conventions are not rude. In English language past royal consorts are reffered to by their premarital names and there is nothing silly about it. Surtsicna (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * can both of you go back and re read what i wrote. i didnt say the naming conventions are rude i said "it is considered inpolite and possibley rude to refer to a married jordanian royal using her maiden surname". Refering to Jordanian royals by their maiden name is considered inpolite or rude not the whole naming convention is rude! no where will you see a female jordanian royal referred to by her maiden name after marriage and hardly anyone will know it to start with. i still stick by everything i said i believe some rules on here are silly and thats my option. I will pass whatever judgement i would like, taking away someone married name when they are still married even though dead is no way in recognition of their status, it is taking away their status.AliaBuhler (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we do it specifically because we recognize that they held queenly status. Wikipedia is not Jordan. Charles 08:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Queen Alia al Hussein should also be moved. Same case, we probably don't need another survey. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 14 May 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.

Women's rights?
Perhaps this should be rephrased: She took part in the writing of the 1952 Constitution that gave full rights to women. I don't believe that women of Jordan have full rights, so it should be re-worded so one understands exactly what it means. --85.226.45.179 (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Women to not have full rights in Jordan. In any case, it should be specified which rights--85.226.43.205 (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)