Talk:Hanna Jaff

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

Work needed[edit]

This is a notable person, but it is packed with many non-notable sources. None of the sources are correctly formatted, so it will take some time to cull them out and format the remaining. The article appears a bit promotional, so that will have to be edited out as well. I am One of Many (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Much of the material I removed was copyright violations. Also, there were extensive non-reliable and spammy links removed. I am One of Many (talk) 07:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paging Megalibrarygirl for cleanup. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: On it! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good girl. Seems this article has been a bit of a train-wreck so far. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... It's difficult to determine which edits are real copyright violations and which are not since SPAs have likely been copying and translating text back and forth from this article to Jaff's website. I cut out most of what looks like copyright violations and fluff added by SPAs. The award section should be greatly reduced. --I am One of Many (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On-going vandalism[edit]

User:Natureium, User:MER-C there seems to be an ongoing vandalism on this page. Can you please check this page, it will be better to move it to draft from the mainspace. 182.176.170.148 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to draft from mainspace is not how we deal with vandalism. It would allow vandals to effectively take down articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard Extension School: Master's of Arts vs Master's of Liberal Arts[edit]

There have been back and forth edits about whether Hanna went to the Harvard Extension School or not.

This topic matters because the Extension school has clear guidelines so as to make it clear that people from a Harvard degree from there don't make it seem as if they went to either Harvard College or the Harvard Graduate School a detailed discussion about the nuances of this is in the following blog post: https://blogs.harvard.edu/lamont/2013/09/18/harvard-extension-school-resume-guidelines-are-bogus/. There is no shame in going to the Extension School, it is still a Harvard degree fair and square, but it is misleading to not make this point given the different standard for matriculation and graduation of the Extension school and for other schools at Harvard.

People who claim she did not go to Harvard Extension School are spreading mis-information and have been editing this repeatedly recently.

There are at least five independent pieces of evidence that suggest she did go to the Harvard Extension School and I hope this settles this edits:

1. Harvard does not offer a Master's of Arts in International Relations. The Extension School does have Master's of Liberal Arts. This is a key point.

Checking Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences for IR sends you to their government program and the list of IR degrees are only PhD programs.

- https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-of-study/all/international-relations -https://gsas.harvard.edu/programs-study/degree-programs -https://www.extension.harvard.edu/academics/graduate-degrees/international-relations-degree

2. In Made in Mexico S01E02 27min48sec you can see her Harvard degree and it clearly states that it is from the Extension School which is the strongest piece of evidence. This is because it has the signature of the dean of the Extension School in the right hand corner.

3. In her third book her bio mentions that she has a Master's of Liberal Arts degree. Hence it is only possible that she got it from the Extension School since "MLA = Extension School Degree" at Harvard. -https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZU3b_dVkgZUlu0YxUotU1wRp3kuy38Ge/view

4. Her Linkedin as of November 2019 list her as having a "Master's of Liberal Arts". -https://uk.linkedin.com/in/hannajb

5. Her CV in June 2018 in HER OWN WEBPAGE listed her degree as "Master Degree in Liberal Arts in the field of International Relations". As of November 2019 this is shortened to "Master's of Arts" but by the points above it is clear that this is just a way to not make it clear she went to the Extension School https://web.archive.org/web/20191029010009/https://hannajaff.com/curriculum-cv/


The only piece of "evidence" against this is Hanna's own webpage as of November 2019 in which she states she has a "Master's of Arts Degree". However this can be clearly debunked/understood to be a "Master's of Liberal Arts" by all the previous points, and it is a misleading way of communicating her degree. Additionally point 5 makes this source null since she previously had mentioned in the same webpage/CV that her degree was one of liberal arts.

Pepelani (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)@pepelani[reply]

It is possible you are correct, but this is all original research, so it is irrelevant.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making point of the standards of Biographies of Living people and of No Original Research, it is very helpful to know this. Let us focus only on verifiable published sources. Her CV is self-published source that is not verifiable and has changed in the last year so I vote we exclude it from evidence.
The reliable published evidence that she went to the extension school is a literal picture of her Harvard Diploma in "Made in Mexico" Season 1 Episode 2 Minute 27 Second 48. Netflix doesn't let screenshots but if you look there you will see her degree is from the extension school.
Another published source is the biography in her third book states she has a masters of liberal arts, which at Harvard are only given by the extension school.
This is using published evidence about this fact. Pepelani (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is original research. Made in Mexico is not a reliable source. If we used sources like that we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. Until you find a reliable source one way or the other, WP:BLP requires not putting in such claims. Her CV is a primary source, which is not best, but it is much better than original research. I am One of Many (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Made in Mexico" is a show on Netflix that literally documents this person's life and shows a LITERAL PICTURE of her degree in HER HOUSE. What is more of an evidence than her literal diploma? This is a primary source. Her CV as a primary source contradicts itself, and as of 2018 stated that she went to the extension school and in 2019 it was changed. To prevent an editing war I am not changing this for now but will open seek a Third opinion. Pepelani (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I was going to suggest that.--I am One of Many (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the episode Made in Mexico S01E02 27min48sec, the image says Harvard University, either way the Extension School is one of the twelve degree granting schools that compose Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.--Strokermax (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I don't see use of footage from Made in Mexico, in of itself, to be something like original research. Primary sources are permitted on Wikipedia. To me, Reading off of a still some words, in an accurate manner, would not be "interpretation" of primary source in the same way it would not be an interpretation to read off the top of the English Bill of Rights the words "An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown".

Wikipedia policy on Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves frowns upon claims made in such sources if there is reasonable reason to doubt their authenticity. That burden is, in my opinion, definitely met. If Harvard says that the degree doesn't exist, then the authenticity of such a source is very reasonably doubted. Ifly6 (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with reading off a screen from a "reality tv show" is that we don't know whether the underlying document is real as with the English Bill of Rights. Her CV is also questionable, so at this point, I think the best option consistent with any BLP issues is simple to delete any mention of masters from Harvard. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ifly6 for the third opinion and I am One of Many for keeping the high standards of this encyclopedia. I think not including her Harvard degree at all would hide a very important aspect of the life trajectory of this living person and its important to keep this datum and to get it right. I think the primary source of the still of her degree is more consistent with BLP, much so than her CV, and it is something that is consistent with other of her published or even self-published information (such as her Linkedin account and the Bio of herself in her books). I think there is more than enough primary evidence to assert this. It is true that there is the abstract possiblity that the still of her degree in her house is a fraud, in the same way that it is possible for any person to lie about their higher education or other aspect of their life, but I don't think there is enough reason to doubt the authenticity that her degree exists at all. I think the evidence that she has a Master's of Liberal Arts meets the burdern of verifiability and is more consistent with the standars of BLP. Let us keep this for now, respect the third opinion, and avoid an editing war, unless new evidence comes up that everything is a fraud and she never went to any school of Harvard at all and or that that particular still of her degree in her house was fabricated for the Netflix TV show (which seems unlikedly since this person has had a public life before and after the reality show). Pepelani (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stokermax Recently added a source (https://noticiasconvalorsma.com/2019/11/16/hanna-jaff-at-harvard-university/) and changed the site to say she has an MA from GAS instead of a ALM from the extension school. However this is not a reputable news source truly verified and furthermore it does not provide evidence to this more than its own word. For every news site that says she has a MA I can find another that says she has a ALM. Examples below, hence we cannot just use media as a reliable source. I think given the evidence that she has a Master's in International Relations (which does not exist in GAS) and the PICTURE of her degree from HER HOUSE that says she went to the Extension School, to be more consistent with BLP unless a better source is documented it is more accurate to keep it the way it was.

https://culturacolectiva.com/cine/fundacion-de-hanna-jaff-de-made-in-mexico https://www.capitalmexico.com.mx/show/hanna-jaff-anduvo-con-luis-miguel-made-in-mexico-foto-san-miguel-de-allende/

Very Questionable Information[edit]

This article has a lot of information that appears to be questionable or not notable. Many of the sources are suspect. I cross referenced some of the claims with the sources in her website and it is clear that her website is unreliable. For example: there is a claim that Cosmopolitan Magazine named her one of the top 10 most admired women in Mexico. The source is a screenshot of a tweet in her website that says "We interviewed 10 women we admire." Many awards do not exist beyond Hanna Jaff receiving them, which makes them very suspect. I'm having trouble finding good sources since most of her mentions appear to come from press releases or explicitly say that they are just citing her website. I think that any award or achievement that was given by a place that isn't notable should be removed. -Solid Reign (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable information, unreliable sources and sockpuppetry vandalism and promotion[edit]

I was about to correct a statement but realised the page consists almost entirely of unsubstantiated promotional claims. Almost none of the information here is verifiable beyond obscure local websites or personal pages that very well could have been sponsored or edited by the subject of the article. Since this article is clearly not about a notable person, it cannot be salvaged. Proposing deletion based on the information bellow:

The only truly verifiable thing that Hanna Jaff has done is participate in the Mexican Reality-TV show Made in Mexico. Her education has been, in the most part, removed when she originally claimed she went to Harvard but later was disproven, and her awards and political career as well. Her claim to be the first Mexican to marry into the British aristocracy could never be verified, yet several accounts (later part of a sock puppet network detailed bellow) continued to revert good edits by verified members that had removed such outlandish claims, including Jaff’s alleged net worth, the Jaff tribe’s net worth, her education and alleged philanthropic work, all based on unreliable sources.

Looking closely it wasn’t hard to notice that all the promotional, unverifiable content has been posted over the years by a network of accounts, most of which have now been proven to be connected and were blocked indefinitely:

  • User_talk:Enrique_Bosdet, all its contributions are on Hanna Jaff, as well as creating the articles for Carlos Henry Bosdet (Hanna Jaff’s maternal ancestor, according to her page), Lady Adela (also an alleged Jaff ancestor), Mohamed Pasha Jaff (another alleged Jaff ancestor). It has a serious warning on its talk page by User:I_am_One_of_Many for repeated “unreliable” and “promotional" edits on the [Hanna Jaff]] article.
  • User:Minorspot, all contributions consist of reverting edits by verified members that had removed promotional information on the Hanna Jaff article. He is now blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Mineraltimer. In Mineraltimer contributions history you will notice an attempted to create several pages (such as House of Roper, Elizazabeth Scrymgeour-Wedderburg, David John Henry Ingham Roper-Curzon) all related to the Roper-Curzon family, which I noticed is the family of Harry Roper-Curzon, Hanna Jaff’s finance according to her website and this wikipedia article. All articles were nominated for deletion or speedy deletion, and were subsequently deleted, except for Pylewell Park (home of the Roper-Cruzons!). More info on User_talk:Mineraltimer and [[1]].
  • User:Vofjustice, all contributions also consist of reverting edits by verified members that had removed promotional information on the Hanna Jaff article. He is now blocked indefinitely by User:AmandaNP as a sock puppet of User:Mineraltimer!
  • User_talk:Strokermax, again… only edits to pages related to Hanna Jaff, such as creating the 'Jaff Foundation' (a foundation supposedly created by Hanna Jaff, for which there is no reliable sources) page that was later deleted by User:Tone. Strokermax was blocked indefinitely by User:Anachronist for undisclosed paid editing and edit warring, due to the over the top promotional tone focused on Hanna Jaff’s educational credentials and “pushing misinformation”, all without any sort of dialogue in the talk page.
  • Most importantly perhaps is the sock-puppet network lead by user:Alibarzanjilo, who was blocked indefinitely w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alibarzanjilo/Archive). Most of Alibarzanjilo’s edits were focused on aggressively promoting Hanna Jaff and related articles for several years now, but more recently also on vandalising edits to other articles, such as Baron Teynham (again, Hanna Jaff’s fiancé’s family), John Christopher Ingham Roper-Curzon, 20th Baron Teynham (Jaff’s fiance’s grandfather?), as well as the 19th, 18th, 2nd and 1st Baron’s articles, Patricia Katherine Montagu Douglas Scott (mother-in-law of John Roper Curzon, 20th Baron Teynham), Pylewell Park (home of the Roper Curzons!), and other articles related to the Roper-Curzon family. These vandalisms were also perpetrated by several other accounts that used a mirror pattern of vandalism: User:Everastromanof, User:Castamour, User:Mikael_Rosandi, User:Darkxenoverse, User:Jcarl82, User:Ancestralgirl, and several more, all now confirmed sock puppets of Alibarzanjilo and blocked by User:Girth_Summit. All edit summaries read almost the same. Given Jaff's connection to the Roper-Curzons, I can only assume Alibarzanjilo and Mineraltimer, are possibly amongst other sock puppeteers are directly controlled by or closely connected to the article's subject, Hanna Jaff.

I believe there is more than enough evidence to place this article for speedy deletion, as well as other articles created and previously manipulated by the blocked accounts discussed above: Jaff Tribe, Mohamed Pasha Jaff Sherwana Castle Osman Pasha Jaff and Lady Adela - all containing extremely promotional, non-verifiable information directly related to promoting Hanna Jaff in what appears to be an attempt to make her notable, all without any reliable sources.

I suggest this article is semi-protected from further edits until the deletion process is resolved.

A.Val.sol (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request to Reopen Deletion Discussion[edit]

The article was proposed for deletion in 2018 but reached not consensus at the time. With all the information we now have of sock puppets blocking edits and adding promotional information without reliable sources, that we review this article again. I went through all the sources and non appear to be reliable, even now in its much, much shrunken version, and by continue removing the unreliable evidence the article is of no notability and unfit for wikipedia. Let us review:

PHILANTHROPY:

A major claim to notoriety is philanthropic work.

One of the other unsubstantiated claims is that Jaff spoke at the United Nations, and the page's sources (footnote 12, 13) for that is a blank page with a picture of her [[2]] and the second a getty images of her attending an event [[3]], neither mentioning her speaking at all. This is immediately followed by an equally large claim to have spoken at OVER 80 Mexican Universities, but her sources (footnotes 14,15,16) one is of her TEDx (a local, less formal, open version of TED Talks) local event she was involved with in Puebla City, whilst the other two (15,16) are TEDx pages that list her as part of the event with a short bio. No official mention of speaking at universities, let alone 80 of them!

A major misinformation is that Hanna Jaff organised the 'first Kurdish festival' in Mexico, which was the 'largest festival held outside of Kurdistan'. If you click on the sources (footnotes 19-24) you will clearly see that Kurdistan was the designated "guest" country that year at the already existing 5th edition of the Festival of Sabor de Morelos, 11 Oct 2013, a food festival and initiative to bring attention to local cuisine to that region of Mexico [[4]]. It is not a Kurdish festival AT ALL, it was not organised by Jaff, at which point the size claim is irrelevant. All other sources state the same. Interestingly, in the local article jaff is tasked with explaining the festival, introducing herself as 'Hanna Jaff, hija de la familia real', or Hanna Jaff, daughter of the royal family' (of Kurdistan, I assume), a falsehood, which explains why all the sockpuppets mentioned in the thread above are focused on her family, ancestors and Jaff herself.

Jaff Foundation: The current article still claims the Jaff Foundation has 'over 7,000 active volunteers that works for them, benefiting more than 120,000 people', even though the 'foundation's' page was removed for lack of sources and promotion to Hanna Jaff, and here the only evidence given for those outlandish figures is a minor, local digital publication that several mirror articles on Hanna Jaff (two of which are almost identical) [[5]] [[6]], the other source (footnote 17) is simply a sensationalist article on Luis Miguel the singer, from a local tabloid-focused digital platform and makes NO mention of the Foundation. The other (footnote 18) is a Forbes article that interview's Hanna (post her reality TV, note) and she claims to have this "Jaff Foundation". No evidence can be found from other reliable sources that document this foundation and/or its supposedly wide reaching work.


POLITICAL CAREER:

Tourism Ambassador of the State of Morelos, Mexico. In both sources, two articles, (footnote 31 and 32), one of which is an archive where members can upload old articles and the other is a small local digital platform, no official pages or serious editorials provided. NOTE: All of the three positions stated on the page as part of her political career are not political positions, they are administrative. She did not have to run for office for them, until the claim to have been Proportional Representation candidate for the Federal Congress, Ecologist Green Party of Mexico, but the source (footnote 30) is a talk show in which she talks about herself. Not reliable, and blatantly promotional.

Some of the evidence goes even further, as sharply noted by @Bearcat: in the old deletion group: 'the notion that a Mexican political figure was getting media coverage in Kurdistan per footnote #26, actually turned out to be a press release (in English, no less, which makes organically independent coverage of her an implausible explanation as virtually all of the site's other content is in Kurdish) — basically, it's a user-generated public relations blog that will "publish" absolutely anything'.

AWARDS:

This section is equally questionable, as all sources (footnotes 17 and 35-43) are all interviews with the subject of the article, Hanna Jaff, mostly from local digital publications, press releases or as @Solid Reign: highlighted above, explicitly say that they are just citing her website and most of the awards themselves do not exist beyond Hanna Jaff receiving them.

The "Woman of the Year" by the National Chamber of Women in Mexico, listed as an award, which appears well sourced with a footnote (48) labeled as the Chamber of Women CANDEM, YET once you click on it redirects to Hanna Jaff's personal website with generic pictures of her holding an award, including an image of a dubious, illegible certificate! [[7]]. The second footnote (47) is of the same, local digital platform used earlier as a source of the Jaff Foundation, from the page that has several articles on Hanna Jaff, almost identical in style and content. The sources are continually recycled.

Claustro Mundial Universitario is an interesting addition. I notice that in previous edits it first claimed Hanna Jaff had received an Honorary Doctorate from them, now it reads medal of 'Academic Excellence' (which in my opinion doesn't meet the notoriety level to be listed in Wikipedia as an award). Equally, there are no sources (beside Jaff herself, or added based on her website) that mention this award.

All other "awards" are not awards, but rather tabloid publications using influencers to gather traffic to their pages and are most likely including Hanna Jaff as a result of her participation in the Reality TV show Made in Mexico and the social media followers she received as a result.

By removing all of the unverifiable content and misinformation stated above, the article would be practically empty.

I ask the previous editors involved to kindly take a minute to review this: @Bearcat:, @Ritchie333:, @I am One of Many:, @DGG:, as well as @Girth Summit: who blocked the sockpuppet and sockpuppeteer accounts mentioned in the comment above that worked in tune to promote and vandalise pages related to Hanna Jaff, and @Tone: who deleted the Jaff Foundation page. A.Val.sol (talk) 15:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three things:
If you feel that the article's current content is predominantly due to COI edits, you can tag it with the {{coi}} tag.
If you feel that the 'keep' arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Jaff (partucularly the ones about coverage in reliable sources like Forbes) can be addressed and shown to be invalid, start a second AFD.
Finally, if you have good justification for removing unreliably sourced claims, do so. If disruption results from anons and socks that crawl out of the woodwork, I am happy to protect the article to prevent further disruption. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the guidance @Anachronist:, I'm still learning but have added the COI tag and removed the unreliably sourced claims (explained in detail above). I noticed this sort of cleanup had been done before by reliable users, but it keeps getting edited back. Let's see this time A.Val.sol (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier "I've tried to cleanup this promotional bio/. I think it's hopeless." Being listed in a specialized Forbes list is not substantial coverage, and does not contribute to notability. These are promotional lists. AfD is the place to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

``

External Dispute Under Investigation[edit]

I've received unsolicited evidence that there is off-wiki harassment and extortion happening with regards to the subject of this page. Prior history confirms involvement of multiple blocked accounts as well. Locking it for a hopefully brief investigation and SPI check. Email me for questions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:44, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: a much overdue review it seems. @DGG: During the review I suggest reverting the article to the last clean edit by @Anachronist:: [[8]], that doesn't include the COI and unreliably sourced claims (discussed and reviewed in detail above) in the recently reverted, current edit.

A.Val.sol (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: I agree with A.Val.sol. There is nothing happening on this talk page with regard to a dispute. Being mindful of m:The Wrong Version, I'll say that, except for one intervening edit by an unconfirmed editor, the article was already in a cleaned-up state before you reverted to the older problematic COI version with questionable sourcing. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware the content of the page is not ideal and I request your patience for a week while I hear back from Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety and ArbCom. The nature of the external threat involves removing content and pursuing deletion in exchange for money--that's troubling. So I'm willing to leave up what's there temporarily, until I have a better sense of what's going on. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 09:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronist, I actually went back to your version but removed the COI tag. I want the last good least inflammatory version, if you understand my meaning. Ocaasi t | c 09:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate usage of first name[edit]

"Hanna is from Tijuana, but was born in San Diego." This isn't a fan blog, we should use appropriate encyclopedic style and use her last name. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is anybody here? Can someone fix this, please? --Khajidha (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editing suggestion.[edit]

In the introduction and info box, the main occupation is missing. Which is “philanthropist” and non profit organization: Jaff Foundation for Education.

As the subject, I have attached references:

Hj2021 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those sources are either already included or are redundant with what's already cited. We don't need multiple sources to verify one sentence. The philanthropy claims were removed (see discussion above) due to unreliable sourcing, although the cuts may have been a bit ambitious to bring the quality of the article up from the mess it was in previously. I'd like to see others chime in. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Anachronist:, those sources have already been questioned and found redundant. There is not one real source for the subject's alleged philanthropic work besides the subject referring to it in interviews, or articles quoting information from the subject's personal webpage (which still contains many of the claims that were removed from this article due to unreliable sources) or from the subject's mouth in the reality television show Made in Mexico - none of them valid sources. There is evidence that all those philanthropic claims are not real, see above in this talk page on the section "Request to reopen deletion discussion", where every source is discussed and debunked in detail.
Furthermore, I would add that the other occupations currently listed in the introduction and sandbox are also not accurate (explained in detailed in the same "request to reopen deletion discussion" section in this talk page). The subject's roles listed as Political positions are minor administrative roles within a political party (not elected or political positions), and therefore the subject is NOT a former politician. Equally, the article's claim that the subject spoke at the UN and at "80 universities" was totally debunked upon inspecting the sources (again, all detailed above in the previously referred section of this talk page) and subsequently permanently removed from the article, except for her participation in TEDx YOUTH Talks in Mexico (which can be verified, but these are an informal version of TED talks, aimed at involving young local people), which in itself does NOT qualify her as a professional speaker either. Finally, the subject's "books", if researched online, are actually brief manual on language learning re-using established methods - making a language pamphlet or manual does not qualify someone as an "author". The only other "book" is a 12-page digital compilation of famous phrases.
In summary, it is evident the reason the subject is in the media is due to her involvement in the Mexican Reality Television show Made in Mexico, and the subsequent social media exposure that show gave the subject. It is the only sourced, verifiably notable thing the subject has accomplished that might merit inclusion in Wikipedia. That said, I would point out the none of the other cast members of that reality show currently have Wikipedia pages.
As a side note: Can I ask an administrator to remove the following categories from the article (that only applied to earlier claims that have long been debunked and deleted): "Activists from California", "Harvard University Alumni" and "Columbia University Alumni".
I suggest the Introduction and Sandbox accurately describe the subject as a "Mexican reality television actress and social media personality", the only sourced, verifiable activities or occupations. Wikipedia is not a self-promotion tool, it is bound to provide only accurate, well sourced information on people of real notoriety. Perhaps @DGG:, @I am One of Many:, @Solid Reign:, @Bearcat:, @Ritchie333:, @Ocaasi: have something to add or could do us the honour of making these adjustments to the article? A.Val.sol (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your comment, and with your proposed edit. I'm happy to do it and agree with @Anachronist:'s comments on those multiple sources: Adding 25 unreliable sources makes it hard to go through every source and debunk them individually. I did try to go through some of them and it's clear that they're not vetting the information and a lot of them are just rehashing claims from her page. -Solid Reign (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree also. For that matter, I think nowadays actress tends to imply social media personality, and Actress would be sufficient. Almost any living person we would write a bio for is to some degree a speaker and author,--and most of them have donated money to something, and have a social media site, and like to be thought of as an influencer. .I tend to remove all of that as fluff, unless it's actually what they are best known for. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of changing the lead as A.val.sol suggested (with appropriate sources, likely different than the two already there), but what's this "sandbox" you all are referring to?
I've also removed the extraneous categories as suggested, although I don't know why an A.val.sol thought an administrator is required. The article is only semi-protected; any established editor may edit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Since we all agreed, I changed the intro which now reads "Mexican reality television actress", with some minor corrections such as condensing the media outlets that mention her to just the important ones without article titles (notable people's articles don't include media mentions in their wikipedia biographies) and other minor textual irregularities. I think the article has reached a fairly decent state (compared to the original mess at least!). Let's keep improving. A.Val.sol (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor tweaks and noticed that we don't have a citation for Caras Magazine. I couldn't find a citation for it in older versions either, although it's mentioned in an early "Awards" section, some of which we may want to bring back if they're significant. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that appearing in Caras is notable. Caras is a Mexican magazine for socialites. A lot of people appear in that magazine since they cover people who attend social events. Maybe vogue is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solid Reign (talk • contribs) 15:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her occupations as a Philanthropist, speaker and author can be found in the UNESCO page https://mgiep.unesco.org/council-for-kindnessmatters. Both her clothing line and NGO are registered in the Mexican government web, type them in here: https://acervomarcas.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/ Gandharraj (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough articles that all claim she is a philanthropist.

I am attaching sources of the subject. I think there is a personal issue with some editors and the subject. There is so many attempts to downplay her.

It’s not the subjects fault if there was some negative article on the award she received, those articles usually run smear campaigns. Many organizations give awards out, I don’t believe anyone goes around making a press conference after every award or accomplishment. I had a look at her website and all of these awards look like big events with lots of people around, they were not in any way made up by the subject.

Sources are reliable and not interviews from her. Hardly any sources define her just as a “Mexican Reality Television actress”, doing a show once does not make that your only occupation. A magazine like Forbes will not publish someone without previously verifiying the subject, she was on FORBES 100 Most powerful women, as a philanthropist. Not for being an actress.

all articles define or mention her as an activist, philanthropist, speaker, or author. Yes, she has three registered books she authored, why wouldn’t she be called an author? They can also be found in the Mexican government page. Her occupation should be based on what she does now, has always done and what she’s known for.

An editor claims everyone is a philanthropist, well that’s not true, and as a fellow philanthropist myself, you are insulting all dedicated philanthropists who do this as a profession and takes twice as much work as any other occupation. It is a full time job.


The subject has a registered Non Profit Organization found in the Mexican Government Page, and is a known activist in Mexico.


TEDx TALKS: The Tedx talks are not all YOUTH. As you can see in the links, all three talks made it to the TED talk official website, once you are recognized and uploaded on the official TED website, it can now be called just TED Talk. Doesn’t even need the “x” anymore, let alone be called Youth. If you see the videos, the people in the audience are not youths.

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/24778 https://www.ted.com/talk/hanna_jaff_deseo_que_la_gente_deje_de_hacerse_dano

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/33339 https://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_jaff_we_are_one

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/21635

All 80 conferences are found in her website: https://hannajaff.com/conferencias/.


Philanthropy.

JAFF FOUNDATION found in the Mexican government page:

http://www.sii.gob.mx/portal/?cluni=&nombre=&acronimo=&rfc=fhj130604j83&status_osc=&status_sancion=&figura_juridica=&estado=&municipio=&asentamiento=&cp=&rep_nombre=&rep_apaterno=&rep_amaterno=&num_notaria=&objeto_social=&red=&advanced=

Also found here: https://acervomarcas.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/

All her work is found on her website: https://hannajaff.com/actividades/

In order to be registered you of course need an address, though in Mexico lots of foundations refuse to disclose that due to security reasons.

Her clothing line “We Are One campaign” is a registered brand in Mexico with an online store that has 900 designs. This is not a personal project, this is a brand: weareonecampaign.com

The official Mexican government page can be found here: https://acervomarcas.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/ (Type in the name of her clothing brand in search)

Information on the TV show is not relative to the subject.Gandharraj (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropist[edit]

Forbes on "The millennial who bets on philanthropy to change the world":

Hanna Jazmin Jaff Bosdet has always looked for ways to help the people in her life. Today, at 29, the young woman of Kurdish-Mexican origin directs a foundation that already has more than 7,000 volunteers among its ranks: the Jaff Foundation.
-[9]

Kurdistan24 News on "Kurdish-Mexican philanthropist named Forbes Mexico’s 100 most powerful women"

A Kurdish-Mexican philanthropist was recently recognized as one of the 100 most influential women in Mexico. Hanna Jaff, a humanitarian, author, and politician, was featured on the cover of Forbes Mexico on May 20 as one of the 100 most powerful women in the North American country."

-[10]

The attempts to downplay accomplishments here remains troubling. Ocaasi t | c 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to including well-sourced information, but that Forbes article looks like the product of an interview. My own family has a foundation. Like the Jaff Foundation, it received a passing mention in some publication. That doesn't make it worth mentioning in my biography, if such a thing would ever be written. It certainly doesn't make me a philanthropist even if I insist that I am. The only claims about her foundation are from Jaff herself and paid editors (one of whom I blocked), and from other unreliable sources mentioned above. I find it curious that the Jaff Foundation website doesn't include any contact information, location, incorporation disclosures, or anything independently verifiable.
The "100 most powerful women" designation should be included, in my opinion. The article used to have an "awards" section that listed this among other irrelevant accolades, but not all of them were irrelevant.
Honestly, much of the reporting done on Jaff seems to be sloppy journalism. Calling her an "author", for example, doesn't make sense when her written works are actually examined. As DGG noted above, almost every notable living person is a speaker or author to some degree. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: As a fellow philanthropist it’s actually extremely difficult to have a foundation on the site listed, active or not active today, when it’s inactive it just means the foundation is not receiving funds in exchange for tax. Yet you are still registered and allowed to do charity without being tax deductible.

you clearly do not have a foundation otherwise you would know this. You need to prove charity activities every month and the government does unannounced inspections. It doesn’t matter if it costs 200 dlrs to register or $20000 to register, the point is it is registered.Gandharraj (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ocaasi: I totally agree with Anachronist. I don't believe anyone is trying to downplay the subject's accomplishments here, simply removing all unverifiable data that has been over embellished or sourced inappropriately. Most if not all sources are articles that either interview the subject in relation to her social media or reality television role, in which passing mentions of the foundation (article for which Wikipedia removed as it deemed it promotional with content mostly focused on Hanna Jaff) and other activities are given directly by the subject or taken from the subject's personal website, with exact wording, which contains information found nowhere else except for the aforementioned articles. The foundation isn't mentioned or documented anywhere besides Hanna Jaff's youtube channel, Hanna Jaff's instagram, her website and her website for the foundation - all other mentiones, such as the Forbes one, are using the exact wording and figures of the subject's website. There have been so many major irregularities with this page that naturally we have to be vigilant as wikipedia is not here to promote or bring notoriety were there is none. Fair is fair. All verifiable, noteworthy elements should be included and respected.
@Anachronist: I reviewed the awards section you mentioned. All of the sources originally included (footnoted then as 17 and 35-43) again are all interviews with the subject, primarily by local digital publications and press releases or as @Solid Reign: highlighted previously, explicitly say that they are just citing her website. In fact, if googled, most of the awards themselves do not exist beyond Hanna Jaff receiving them.
The "Woman of the Year" by the National Chamber of Women in Mexico, listed as an award, which appears well sourced with a footnote (48) labeled as the Chamber of Women CANDEM, but once you click on it redirects to Hanna Jaff's personal website with generic pictures of her holding an award, including an image of a dubious, illegible certificate. [[11]]. The second footnote (47) is of the same, local digital platform used earlier as a source of the Jaff Foundation, from the page that has several mirror articles on Hanna Jaff, almost identical in style, wording and content. The sources are continually recycled.
Claustro Mundial Universitario is an interesting addition. I notice that in previous edits it first claimed Hanna Jaff had received an Honorary Doctorate from them, then it was changed to say it was a medal of 'Academic Excellence' (which in my opinion doesn't meet the notoriety level to be listed in Wikipedia as an award). Notable or not, there are no sources (beside the subject herself, the mention quoting her website) that refer to this award.
All the other "awards" in that section are not awards per se, but rather tabloid publications that refer to influencers and include Hanna Jaff in relation to her participation in the Reality TV show Made in Mexico. The "influential" aspect of her career is in relation to her large social media, with 1 million followers on instagram. If you all deem it worthy we can include this last part. I agree with @Anachronist: that the Forbes article on her influence should be included, but all others seem way bellow encyclopaedic standards. A.Val.sol (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About the Claustro Mundial Universitario, there are doctorate diploma mills in Mexico that award honorary doctorates for people who pay for them, but don't give any degrees. They usually give them to politicians or to reporters who want to buy legitimacy. Here's an article about it in Spanish from a very reliable source [12]. The They usually have "claustro doctoral" in their names, and cost a couple of thousand dollars. The article in question is talking about Claustro Doctoral Mexicano. If you check Hanna Jaff's website, she would mention that her's came from the "Claustro Doctoral Mexicano" while the article I posted talks about the fraudulent "Claustro Doctoral de Mexico". If you search for "Claustro Doctoral de Mexico" there are 30 results, almost all of them about Hannah Jaff or a poet called Antonio Orta. I honestly do not think it should be mentioned. I know this is not a reliable source but in this website it mentions that the honorary doctorate you mention (from claustro mundial universitario) is a scam [13]. -Solid Reign (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than enough articles that all claim she is a philanthropist.

I am attaching sources of the subject. I think there is a personal issue with some editors and the subject. There is so many attempts to downplay her.

It’s not the subjects fault if there was some negative article on the award she received, those articles usually run smear campaigns. Many organizations give awards out, I don’t believe anyone goes around making a press conference after every award or accomplishment. I had a look at her website and all of these awards look like big events with lots of people around, they were not in any way made up by the subject.

Sources are reliable and not interviews from her. Hardly any sources define her just as a “Mexican Reality Television actress”, doing a show once does not make that your only occupation. A magazine like Forbes will not publish someone without previously verifiying the subject, she was on FORBES 100 Most powerful women, as a philanthropist. Not for being an actress.

all articles define or mention her as an activist, philanthropist, speaker, or author. Yes, she has three registered books she authored, why wouldn’t she be called an author? They can also be found in the Mexican government page. Her occupation should be based on what she does now, has always done and what she’s known for.

An editor claims everyone is a philanthropist, well that’s not true, and as a fellow philanthropist myself, you are insulting all dedicated philanthropists who do this as a profession and takes twice as much work as any other occupation. It is a full time job.


The subject has a registered Non Profit Organization found in the Mexican Government Page, and is a known activist in Mexico.


TEDx TALKS: The Tedx talks are not all YOUTH. As you can see in the links, all three talks made it to the TED talk official website, once you are recognized and uploaded on the official TED website, it can now be called just TED Talk. Doesn’t even need the “x” anymore, let alone be called Youth. If you see the videos, the people in the audience are not youths.

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/24778 https://www.ted.com/talk/hanna_jaff_deseo_que_la_gente_deje_de_hacerse_dano

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/33339 https://www.ted.com/talks/hanna_jaff_we_are_one

https://www.ted.com/tedx/events/21635

All 80 conferences are found in her website: https://hannajaff.com/conferencias/.


Philanthropy.

JAFF FOUNDATION found in the Mexican government page:

http://www.sii.gob.mx/portal/?cluni=&nombre=&acronimo=&rfc=fhj130604j83&status_osc=&status_sancion=&figura_juridica=&estado=&municipio=&asentamiento=&cp=&rep_nombre=&rep_apaterno=&rep_amaterno=&num_notaria=&objeto_social=&red=&advanced=

Also found here: https://acervomarcas.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/

All her work is found on her website: https://hannajaff.com/actividades/

In order to be registered you of course need an address, though in Mexico lots of foundations refuse to disclose that due to security reasons.

Her clothing line “We Are One campaign” is a registered brand in Mexico with an online store that has 900 designs. This is not a personal project, this is a brand: weareonecampaign.com

The official Mexican government page can be found here: https://acervomarcas.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/ (Type in the name of her clothing brand in search)

Information on the TV show is not relative to the subject.Gandharraj (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandharraj you are listing all the sources that have been discussed and analysed at length in this talk page, and deemed unreliable. You continue using the subject's personal website as a source, which does not stand in an encyclopaedic context. Furthermore, registering a foundation (which I have done before) does not constitute as evidence of the grand activity that the subject claims for said foundation in her website and/or interviews (which are the other links you are including) and nowhere else. Registering a foundation does not make someone a philanthropist, at least not in an encyclopaedia. Mentions of the subject's activities in interviews or other websites that are taking the subject's bio from her website does not constitute as a source of her profession either. Furthermore, the Tedx Talks you mention ARE included in the current version of the article because they are properly sourced, however the gran claim that the subject has spoken at 80 University has, as you said yourself, the subject's personal website as its only source - at risk of repeating myself, a personal website is NOT an encyclopaedic source. Please refer to the thread above as all these items have been discussed exhaustibly and in detail. Your recent edits have been reverted by two editors and you have disregarded that by editing again without consultation. Kindly discuss any changes on this page before editing as to avoid an edit war, and respect for others that have taken the time to clean this article over many months.
@Anachronist:, the user Gandharraj has been making edits disregarding the thread above, the previous was restored to your last revision by @Melcous: who aptly suggested in the edit summary that those changes be discussed in this talk page before inclusion. This observation was ignored and Gandharraj edited the page again, this second time it was I that restored it to your last revision, which is so far the best one. I think it would be wise to fully protect the article again, this time for a much longer period in order to have it all duly analysed, or else we risk going back in circles and current editors getting tired and new ones having to review all this again in a year or so (as it appears to have happened with this page over and over since it was created). There is a clear effort to push the claims on the subject's website onto this wikipedia page, and that should be monitored. If anything notable is to be included, we all welcome it, but sources should be presented and discussed here first, especially given the more than dubious history of this page. @Anachronist: if you agree, could you fully protect the article for an extended period to avoid vandalism and the edit wars that are beginning to take place yet again? A.Val.sol (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol: If you are truly concerned with Wikipedia, then I can give you millions of articles on Wikipedia you could focus on that hardly even have any sources and are extremely promotional. Some don’t even have sources at all. Doesn’t even come close to as many as this subject does. Let alone reliable. Yet I don’t see you going through so much trouble and time with other pages.

Take a look at these pages for example: no reliable sources what’s so ever:

Gandharraj (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Val.sol:Is Malala an actress just for doing TV too? No! She is an activist and philanthropist. The subject has done a full career in philanthropy.Gandharraj (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that this is personal. The truth is that this article contained a lot of misinformation and it was clearly written as a PR piece. About your sources: giving a TEDx talk is definitely not the same as having a TED talk. TEDx are independent events and are almost always placed on the website. There's nothing wrong with giving a TED talk but it's very misleading to change one from the other. On the other hand, agree from your links that they are not TEDx youth talks (one is, the other is standard, the other university). On the other hand, being in the IMPI does not mean anything. It's just that a brand is registered with the government, it's a 200 USD cost. About the sii link, it shows that it was founded in 2014, and they filed reports until 2017. The link clearly says that there have been no reports filed in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and the government considers it inactive in that link. About your comment saying that there's been bad press for her awards: it's not bad press, I'm saying that those are not real doctorates. Animal Politico is not a hit newspaper that runs smear campaigns. It's one of the most respected newspapers in Mexico, and is responsible for many groundbreaking stories in Mexico, including one that exposed deep levels of corruption between local universities and the government. About her being a speaker and author, I think I'd like @Anachronist:, @DGG:, @I am One of Many:, @Bearcat:, @Ritchie333:, @Ocaasi: and @A.Val.sol: to chime in. Before adding those claims, I think we can analyze each one and see if they should or should not be added, please stop trying to add them when they have been cited as unreliable. However, we should not be gish-galloping and adding 20 unreliable links that mention something in passing, since that does not add anything and makes the process slower -Solid Reign (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Solid Reign:As for Forbes, this was not an interview. The subject was listed as Forbes 100 most powerful women in Mexico for her philanthropy work. It’s a list.

Link: https://cdn.forbes.com.mx/2019/05/Mujeres-Listado.pdf

As for her website, I was not trying to use her website as a source. I was trying to make a point on her active philanthropy work, given there is so many pictures and events to see she’s done. As I said before, I don’t think anyone goes around doing a press conference or interviews m after single every charity event, conference or award given.Gandharraj (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solid Reign:, I agree. Unfortunately, a minute after I published the above comment, Gandharraj edited the article again for the 3rd time, again pushing the subject's own philanthropy claims, in total disregarded for this talk page discussion, and effectively starting an edit war. It is the third time Gandharraj ignores their edits being reversed by two editors in less than 24 hours. Gandharraj, kindly refrain from further editing on this article until we can discuss this further. We have spent months cleaning this article, and it is not about one's personal definition of philanthropy, it is about the encyclopaedic definition (aptly explained by @Anachronist: above).
Given the clear ping-pong editing war going on, I propose the page be fully protected for a long period at once, in order to review the information at hand. Especially given that Gandharraj has shown no intention abiding by this talk page discussion A.Val.sol (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Solid Reign:,@A.Val.sol:What’s more reliable then the UNESCO and TED pages? No they did not quote from her website as her website doesn’t even have a bio.

As a fellow philanthropist it’s actually extremely difficult to have a foundation on the site listed, active or not active today, when it’s inactive it just means the foundation is not receiving funds in exchange for tax. Yet you are still registered and allowed to do charity without being tax deductible.

you clearly do not have a foundation otherwise you would know this. You need to prove charity activities every month and the government does unannounced inspections. It doesn’t matter if it costs 200 dlrs to register or $20000 to register, the point is it registered.

Checking every detail, link, word on word quote with sources of this page like a hawk when most Wikipedia pages have hardly any sources, let alone word on word proof, is clearly a personal issue with the subject.

You are wrong about animal político, they do run smear campaigns, and no it’s not one of the respected newspapers in Mexico. Either way, it’s not the subjects fault if she gets an award from an organization that gets bad press. Either way that award has been removed so not sure why you keep mentioning it.


Is Malala an actress just for doing TV too? No! She is an activist and philanthropist. The subject has done a full career in philanthropy. You are just trying to downplay her.Gandharraj (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solid Reign:,@A.Val.sol: If you claim you have no personal issue with the subject then why spend SO much of your time reading every single life event on her and finding every single way to bash her? downplaying everything she does? It’s so obvious you have a clear problem. The subject has thousands of reliable sources written on her saying she’s a philanthropist, yet you still question it? I smell a character assassination here.

What reliable sources define the subject as an actress? I cannot find any sources who define her this way. Compared to thousands of sources like Forbes, vogue, NBC, telemundo, Tatler magazine, Bustle, hello magazine, Chicago Sun Times and San Diego Union Tribute, and many more, who all define her as a philanthropist.Gandharraj (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Solid Reign: @Anachronist: the user Gandharraj has now edited the page for the 4th time in a row, ignoring @Melcous: and my own restoration of the last revision done by Anachronist, which seems to be the last approved edit so far catalogued on this talk page. Could someone please fully protect the page to put an end to this vandalism? Thank you.
Gandharraj, we only seek to remove claims that cannot be verified, it is not our personal opinion on the subject, it is an extensive effort to bring what was originally a PR piece and turn it into an article that meets encyclopaedic standard. It has never been about the subject, it is about the article - surely you should know that if you're an editor on Wikipedia. I do not appreciate your accusations that we ALL have a personal issue with the subject, in a weak attempt to have unreliably sourced claims published on this article. I would add that your aggressive tone and editing (that actively undermines the work of many months of many editors, and is omissive of the information discussed here) suggest that you far more likely to have a personal connection or bias to the article's subject. It is even more bizarre that your argument is that since other wikipedia article are poorly sourced, that we should therefore not verify the sources on this article - and if we do, that we must have a bias? You also ask the odd question as to why we spend so much of our time researching this article? Because we are dedicated to the project that is Wikipedia, an online encyclopaedia that aims to provided verifiable, unbiased information (on people of notoriety). I could reverse the question and ask why you (having several editors analyse and deemed the sources and related claims unreliable with strong evidence to back it up) decide to spend so much energy and time attempting to include items that do not meet the criteria? We have answered why those sources you continue to push are not reliable. We are going round in circles here. All other editors have chimed in to make a decision before editing, why can't you join in as we have? We can discuss these items before including or disregarding them, but first the article should be protected (as Anachronist's last edit) as there is a clear conflict of interest here. A.Val.sol (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I don't think anyone here is disputing that the page is incomplete and can have more reliable sources, and more information. When I visited this article the first time, it was claimed that she was one of the 10 most admired women in Mexico. I checked the source and it was a twitter message in Cosmo that said "we interviewed 10 women we admire". This article was obviously used as PR. Because of these dubious claims, a lot of people have put a lot of work in this article in order to make sure that it reflects reality. What @A.Val.sol: is asking from you is to stop editing the Wikipedia page in order to define what constitutes a reliable claim. Most of your comments make no sense and ignore completely the reason behind why many of the claims are considered dubious. -Solid Reign (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Solid Reign: There is already a list on the other discussion Talk with a list of reliable sources where they define her as a philanthropist. I repeat, whats a higher source then UNESCO and these media outlets? None mention she’s an “actress”. I have copied and pasted the list provided:

These articles are not from her website. They are articles from serious media outlets writing about the subject. Are you now accusing these outlets as not writing reliable information then?

What reliable sources do you have that the subject is defined as an “actress”? Is Malala an actress just for doing TV? No. She’s an activist and philanthropist. Or in any case, described as a TV personality.

As for Cosmopolitan magazine, not sure why you’re mentioning old phrasing, as an editor all you would need to do is rephrase to “women they admire” , you don’t have to delete or bash the subject for it. If you read the Cosmopolitan article itself, it identifies her as a “philanthropist and activist” which Cosmopolitan is a reliable source.

As for your accusations towards myself, no I am not related to the subject, but I have followed her work for 10 years and find your compulsive downplaying accusations on her to be uncalled for.Gandharraj (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandharraj, sadly, you were the one that began accusing editors here of bias for contributing to the clean up of extensive amounts of promotional, unreliably sourced claims. As @Solid Reign: said, the original article was clearly written as a PR piece. This clean up labour has taken several months, with the sole intention of building the article up from a solid, real foundation. You claim to be a follower of the subject for over 10 years (interestingly, that would mean several years before the subject's public activities even began and she was still at university). I constitute that as bias. Unlike you, I am not here because I admire, follow or critique the subject, that does not come into the equation, just the article's encyclopaedic integrity - the sole purpose of editing on Wikipedia. I repeat, the sources you provide are not new to this talk page, they have been discussed at length in this and previous threads of this article's talk page. Even the most reputable sources, such as Forbes, only include philanthropy as part of the general biography, using the same wording as the one used in the CV section of the subject's personal website, without giving real evidence of philanthropic activities at all. Some of these articles also claim that Hanna Jaff is literally a royal Princess [14], but evidence for this cannot be found in any other reputable source - hence why that isn't included. If you would kindly refer to the different sections on this talk page, all sources are discussed at length. It would save everyone a great deal of time. Jaff might have done charitable acts in her life, that isn't what is in question. But just as writing a 13-page booklet (downloadable online from Jaff's website) doesn't make the subject a notable author, those passing mentions in digital publications do not make the subject a notable philanthropist either. The only indisputable notability in this article comes from the subject's public debut with her role in Mexican reality television series Made in Mexico, hence why the intro to the subject's wikipedia article reads Mexican reality television actress, and then mentions her philanthropic and authorial interests in the appropriate sub-sections - but not as the defining aspect of her person.
The "UNESCO link" leads to a UNESCO-Affiliated page for the initiative #KindnessMatters, which aims to "collect 1 million global stories". The biography included for Jaff on this affiliated website is, word by word[15], that which appears on the subject's website: "Philanthropist, human rights activist, conference speaker, author"[16]. How can you list that as the most important source or evidence of her philanthropic work, when the actual philanthropic work isn't documented at all?
Gandharraj all the information and links will remain above, so no need to copy-paste them again. Now, I think we should review this properly and fairly amongst all editors, in a strictly encyclopaedic manner, as to not undo all the hard work dedicated to this page so far (none of which was "compulsive", as you say). I hope this page gets full protection so that we can do this over the next months with everyone's participation. A.Val.sol (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol:, @Gandharraj:, , @Anachronist: The article has been locked for a week. Meanwhile, let's try to take that time to create a fair article that reflects reality and make sure that sources are valid. -Solid Reign (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol: Can you show me your Wikipedia page or other Wikipedia pages of people of the same sort that have word by word sources like you expect? Can I have the name of your NGO so I can review it too? You make it sound so easy but I was reading about it and the process to have an NGO approved in Mexico is minimum wait of a year to two years just for approval. And many NGO’s don’t ever even qualify. You also have to be actively using it and proof activities every month. You can’t just have an inactive NGO in Mexico, so clearly the subject’s NGO does have work behind it, during the years that she was living in Mexico. otherwise she wouldn’t have been given and approved one to begin with, you would know the requirements for approval if you actually do have a NGO.Gandharraj (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the labels[edit]

(arbitrary section break)

When "serious media outlets" do nothing more than parrot (almost verbatim) Hanna Jaff's website, those sources cannot be taken seriously. Rather, they should be considered as examples of shoddy journalism.

What we need are well-sourced evidence for these labels that doesn't parrot Jaff's own website.

  • philanthropist - all we have so far are Jaff's claims and those sources that parrot them. No actual independent coverage about philanthropic work, just sources throwing out a label used on Jaff's website. And yes Gandharraj, my family does have a registered foundation. We use the foundation's funds to provide university scholarships. But we make no claims of notability, and we certainly don't make a point of proclaiming ourselves philanthropists. I find your arguments supporting this labeling for Jaff dubious at best. Where is the independent coverage of philanthropic work? All we have are claims from Jaff's website. A real bona-fide philanthropic foundation would be including links to actual independent coverage, not the self-reported stuff that's currently on their website.
  • speaker - I agree we should mention this. The TEDX talks and other sources are enough to establish that.
  • author - everyone is an author. I write Wikipedia articles, I maintain a blog, I've published articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, etc. But I don't make a point of calling myself an "author" because that isn't my primary focus of work. What has she written that's signifcant, beyond some self-published pamphlets?
  • former politician - so far, zero evidence. Being an appointee or a government employee doesn't equate to "politician". We have WP:NPOL to determine whether this should even be mentioned.
  • TV personality - either that, or actress. I think we can establish this one and include it.

That's my take on this so far. I'm willing to change my views. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of what you've said, I've tried researching a little more. These are my views:
  • Politician. it's a little hard to explain but basically: she was candidate for federal congress in a proportional representation list. She wasn't running for a specific district, and isn't elected on a vote basis. It's called a plurinominal candidacy and it's a way to represent parties who did not manage to get a plurality in any district but do have people voting for them. The party will give a list of 40 candidates and depending on the number of votes they got, they will be chosen in order to represent the party, if not a specific territory. She was 4th in line for her party [17] I'll let you guys decide if this is enough to be mentioned, personally I do not think that this would achieve notability for a candidate but unclear if we should talk about it. Maybe her short career in the state party is worth keeping in the article. As she never ran for office and was just a proportional representation candidate I do not think she should be considered a politician.
  • Speaker. agreed, and don't think we should add it was a TEDx youth event, since only one of them was TEDx youth.
  • Author. Books appear to be for migrants in order to be able to pronounce words in English. Can't find any information on them, but I believe she gave them for free while she was working at the state party and that they're downloadable from her website. She also has a book with quotes she's said. Again, might deserve a mention in passing in her biography, but definitely not in her intro.
  • TV Personality, agreed.
  • Philanthropist. This is the hardest for me. There are many unreliable and semi-reliable sources that mention it, but just like you, I cannot find any independent evidence supporting anything that the foundation has done other than what she has mentioned in interviews. Again, might merit a mention below, but don't understand how she would qualify as a philanthropist. Gandharraj's own link showed that the foundation hasn't presented their annual reports for the past 4 years. I can't find any reports of their work, and all I can find are pictures in their website showing that they've donated the books Hanna Jaff wrote, food, movie tickets, clothing, school supplies, and toys. Although that hasn't been updated in 2 years. This isn't a reliable source but at least gives a panorama of how real the organization's work is. -Solid Reign (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I had a look as Wikipedia's notoriety criteria for each of the labels. I'll include them under each label to facilitate the analysis. I will divide the labels in two, INCLUSION and EXCLUSION. In summary, I agree with both @Anachronist: and @Solid Reign:.

INCLUSION

ACTOR - Wikipedia's criteria is as follows: * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Out of all the labels, Actor is the one in which Jaff meets the criteria, if not for having significant roles in multiple shows at least from her 1 million instagram followers that might constitute as a cult following. It is also evident that TV personality/actress is the primary source of notoriety/occupation and the reason why the subject is included in the media outlets previously mentioned. As such, the current version of the article's introduction appears to follow the encyclopaedic format: she is introduced as a Reality Television actress, stating which show made her a public figure and when it happened.

SPEAKER - It was said that the talks were not TEDx talks but TED talks instead, but as Anachronist highlighted before, all of the links clearly state they are TEDx talks[18][19] (the website makes the clear distinction, stating that TEDx talks are local events that include local citizens that inspire, organised by volunteers and not run by TED Talks). The link to the third and final talk clearly states it is a TEDx youth talk.TEDxYouth: Oxf. As such, I don't see how these would qualify the subject as a speaker, at least not at the level to be included in the introduction. So, in agreement with Solid Reign and Anachronist, the current intro appears to be correct in excluding it. I also agree that these talks should remain in the article's body, given they are properly sourced, but it should be specified that two were TEDx and one TEDx Youth.

EXCLUSION

AUTHOR - Wikipedia's notability guidelines clearly state the following: Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals: * The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. * The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Self-published language pamphlets/manuals and 12-page booklet on Jaff's favourite phrases clearly do not come close to meet the criteria above, and as such should be left out of the article completely.

POLITICIAN - Wikipedia' notability guidelines for inclusion: * Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.[13] This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[8] *Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.

Solid Reign's explanation is very informative. These roles within the PRI party took place when the subject was a full-time university student (according to the CV in her personal website) and are not political positions. Furthermore, being fourth in line for a plurinominal candidacy does not come close to the criteria specified above. They are included in the current edit as part of the article's body, but in this case I believe these should be removed. In this instance it is not only about sources, the roles themselves are not political positions nor do they meet wikipedia's criteria.

PHILANTHROPY - This is a complicated one, as there clearly has been a lot of PR effort behind establishing Jaff as a philanthropist, but it isn't clear if it is just a publicity strategy. I reviewed all the sources in this talk page and online, and couldn't find one that didn't parrot the subject's personal page (most word-by-word), which would constitute as the original source, and none come close to meet wikipedia's general criteria: * Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject. :[5] Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references, but do not contribute toward establishing the notability of a subject. "Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work)

The criteria specified is what all the sources on Jaff's alleged philanthropy lack. I am leaning towards the conclusion that this is more PR strategy/public image creation. Either way, the current sources do not meet the criteria so I don't believe they should be included in the article, let alone the intro, until we can find new ones that meet Wikipedia's criteria. A.Val.sol (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I first knew of the subject when she was 23 at a youth conference where she was a speaker, what does her being in university at the time have to do with the fact that I knew who she was 10 years ago.

I’m not accusing everyone, I do though have concerns for your true interests with the subject @A.Val.sol:. Who also uses the same IP address when you were editing without an account. I don’t believe it has to do with Wikipedia being a safe encyclopedia for you, based on your edit history and when you started your account username, you’re just focused on her. You started your account just for her. Why I assumed it was personal. You took the time to look at everything on her CV and every article ever written about her with a magnifying glass to find ways to criticize, and wrote up a long list of points downplaying her bio which I find troubling, and I believe other editors here agree with me on that too. I also hope this isn’t a sexist or racist hate act, to downplay a woman’s accomplishments.

She was on Netflix, about high-end social scenarios in Mexico. So if you know how the press and entertainment work, lots of articles and edits on her page were and are still probably made out of her control. Having worked for Netflix, I’m sure lots of PRs have represented her and done work without her knowledge. She also has lots of fans, friends, thousands of people she’s helped, a big volunteer team, and hundreds of thousands of followers, so many people probably interfere and opinionate in her life. You can’t bash the subject for it. Unless you find an interview of her claiming untrue statements about herself that actually come from her mouth, you should consider not accusing her of false claims or articles written about her that she has no control of. This is one of the downfalls of being in the public eye, your life is exposed, and you can’t handle the press or what people say.

I looked at her website and it doesn’t say her occupations nor are the articles parroting her website. It’s just a list of her CV with references and links to pictures, none of the articles write out her CV. Lots of people have websites, blogs or social media to keep record of what they do, journalists write based on the public information provided. (Unless you have paparazzi behind you.) There is only so many ways to say “philanthropist” about someone if all you’re posting about is charity work. I also don’t think she made a career focusing on documenting everything she did with reliable press just so people would believe it. She probably doesn’t feel the need to prove anything to anyone, hence why everything is just on her website or social media accounts.

Author: books can be found on her NGO website that are 104 pages: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gVt1kve0i0EOnmrs6upTpchaANvobYZO/view NOT 13 Pages, but 104 pages. The other two are 52 and 76 pages. Of course this is considered an author. Click on her three books here: https://jafffoundation.com/books/ . As listed in Wikipedia: ‘An author is the creator or originator of any written work such as a book or play, and is also considered a writer. More broadly defined, an author is "the person who originated or gave existence to anything" and whose authorship determines responsibility for what was created. ‘ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author the subject has created and gave existence to three books that all three add up to more than 230 pages, so this clearly defines her as an author or writer.

If an UNESCO organization page mentioning her occupations is not good enough source then what is? They obviously probably verified her and went through background filters before writing people’s occupations on their website. What about Forbes 100 most powerful women in Mexico list? They probably did their homework before placing her on the list too. There is 100 million people in Mexico, and they picked her. What’s a better reliable source than that.

Politician: yes she was, she had roles as Undersecretary of Immigrants and Undersecretary of Civil society in the Institutional Revolutionary Party. Attached are three links by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, (the former ruling party), that state so:

TV personality: is okay, although she only did that for a few months of her life, that is not considered an occupation in my point of view, let alone be called an “actress” or a “tv reality actress” as mentioned in the subjects page right now, it is completely misleading and untrue. Kim Kardashian isn’t even described as an “actress” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian nor any of her 5 siblings yet they have been in reality tv for 20 years. They are all described as ‘Media Personality’ or ‘TV Personality’. The meaning of “actress” according to Wikipedia’s page is: ‘An actor is a person who portrays a character in a performance (also actress; see below).[1] The actor performs "in these flesh" in the traditional medium of the theatre or in modern media such as film, radio, and television.’ Jaff has done none of that. Therefore is not an “actress” and that term is incorrect.

Speaker: given she’s done three TEDx talks she should be considered a “speaker”.

Philanthropist: @Anachronist: @Solid Reign:. Wikipedia only requires two to three sources to prove a statement. Here are ten sources for proving she is a philanthropist, surely at least two of the ten sources provided below should be acceptable. They are NOT interviews. They are Mexican media outlets that all mention her previous work as a Philanthropist:

Two more reliable sources to consider again: Forbes power 100 list and UNESCO mention her occupation as a philanthropist:

Occupations: So given the sources above she is in fact a Philanthropist, Speaker, Author, Former Politician, and if you insist on including a Former TV or Media Personality would be acceptable.

I’m an award winning horse trainer and philanthropist, and it’s all over my website and LinkedIn. Does that mean that just because I say what I do on my web, if I ever have a Wikipedia page it can’t say those two occupations on my website? It’s a fact, that’s what I do!! It’s a human right, I’m allowed to say what I do. Why is it an issue that someone has their occupation on their website hence can’t be used on Wikipedia? So what else are you suppose to say I do? Call me a animal lover and people helper? No, you call me a horse trainer and philanthropist. Because that’s what I am! So does this mean that known doctors, lawyers, bloggers, youtubers, and athletes with websites can’t have a Wikipedia page that says the same occupation? How else are you suppose to say doctors, lawyers, bloggers, youtubers and athletes? This whole “it’s parroting off her website excuse” is nonsense. What else is she suppose to say? That’s what she does! I’m saying this whole talk discussion has a personal problem with the subject and I think their is a hate act and character extortion against her going on here. You are looking for any excuse to downplay her and I ask the Wikipedia Volunteer team and @Ocaasi: to look into these downplaying sexist racist editors.

@A.Val.sol: Just because someone doesn’t post in the last two years doesn’t mean she hasn’t done charity in two years, not everyone posts what they do and she could be living a more quiet life. I know for a fact she’s done work since I see on her social media all the time. She also hasn’t lived in Mexico since 2018, so her work has mostly been international.Gandharraj (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-

I am surprised at the grave accusations, insults and aggressive tone on behalf of Gandharraj towards the editors involved in this thread. I now question the editor's COI in the subject and echo their request to invite all editors to help me detect which of the above exchange between @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: and myself is in any way sexist or racist, when in fact we know neither the race or the gender of the editor... We have all kept a strict encyclopaedic tone and pragmatic approach, unlike editor Gandharraj, who continues to take all of this extremely personal to the point of losing objectivity. We are discussing, not dictating, what should be included or excluded in this article (not once criticising the subject itself) and you have always been welcome to participate. This article is neither my first edit, I don't only edit this page nor is it relevant if I once edited after my computer automatically logged me out. Not only that but I never once mentioned the requirements to starting an NGO, nor did I mention anything about the foundation being inactive for over two years, that I believe was Solid Reign. You are grasping at straws, and I do not know why but I can certainly take an educated guess, as I believe most here will as well.
Back to the topic at hand: Gandharraj continues to post the same sources and insists on using insults as a substitute for encyclopaedic rigour. I inform the editor that they are incorrect; if you claim to be a politician, activist, philanthropist or author in your personal website, it does not automatically make it true, nor does it grant you notoriety in any of those fields to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, even if you have dabbled in them and have a large media following that replicates the promotional information in said personal website. We should continue a respectful dialogue until we reach a consensus on the labels. Good day. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol: Your are being racist and sexist toward the subject. And no these are not repetitive sources, they are new sources, maybe re-read my last comment:

Here are ten sources for proving she is a philanthropist, surely at least two of the ten sources provided below should be acceptable. They are NOT interviews. They are Mexican media outlets that all mention her previous work as a Philanthropist:

Gandharraj (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you do not know all our genders or ethnic backgrounds, so you cannot claim that we (three different editors) have bias on that account, to your or the subject. This is becoming ridiculous. Grasping at straws to include information that isn't encyclopaedic. We have not once made reference to the subject beyond the article's encyclopaedic integrity, nor do we question the sources beyond the guidelines stipulated by Wikipedia. You can post 1 million sources, but if these do not meet the criteria, they should not be included. Please go to WP:NPOL to review these criteria. A.Val.sol (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming the other three editors are sexists or racist, I’m pointing at you @A.Val.sol:. This all seems like a Perez Hilton show, a hater who looks for any magnifying glass excuse or made up reason to downplay others accomplishments. It’s pretty obvious you have a personal issue with the subject.

You tone in the way you write thinking you’re a supreme judge of this platform and not finding any source reliable or good enough is clearly troubling. This is not about Wikipedia criteria, nothing fits your personal criteria. I provided 10 sources, did you even have a look at all them? You only need two or three to meet the criteria. The list of sources I provided are considered reliable sources, they meet the criteria for Wikipedia, they are respectable media outlets in Mexico. Not to mention Forbes Power 100 list and UNESCO should be considered a primary source and enough. I don’t think that even if God hand wrote an article saying she’s a Philanthropist it will be considered good enough source for you, so clearly there is a character extortion and personal issue here.

You can not say that this outlets copied what’s on her website when firstly these articles don’t just mention her professions, they mention her philanthropic work, secondly her personal website doesn’t mention her occupations. I never said that if your website claims to be “politician, philanthropist, author, speaker, “ that it makes it true. This is based on sources I provided. You cannot speak on behalf of media outlets and institutions what they wrote about her, why accuse them of copying, parroting or plagiarism? For all you know, her website was updated after the articles were made. Besides, I can’t find her occupations mentioned on her website anyways, all it is: is a CV with links of pics. And even if she did, there is nothing wrong with writing what she does. Almost every public figure has a personal website with what they do.Gandharraj (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gandharraj you have always been welcome to contribute and discuss why you think the sources should be included. First you repeatedly disregarded the talk page and continued to edit the article until it had to be fully protected. After that, when we set to review the sources of your edits, three separate editors explained (in great detail) why they think the sources are not reliable, based on and citing wikipedia's own criteria (WP:NPOL). Instead of using that same criteria to explain why they are reliable, you directly proceeded to debase this talk page with serious personal accusations and hateful, grave insults. I only echoed the conclusions posted by two fellow editors BEFORE me. Your arguments repeat themselves, disregarding our explanations completely and show a total lack of interest for encyclopaedic form. First you called us three "sexist racist editors", clearly plural, and now you're repeating the insult, over and over, directly to me. Uncalled for and unacceptable. I refuse to engage in an abusive exchange, this isn't about me or the subject, or you, it is about the article - something you are clearly unable to focus on. You are using abuse and insults to intimidate those labels into the article. That is not how Wikipedia works A.Val.sol (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol: The below articles all fit Wikipedia criteria. Two of the ten sources provided below should be acceptable. They are NOT interviews. They are reliable Mexican media outlets that all mention her previous work as a Philanthropist:

Two more reliable sources to consider again: Forbes power 100 list and UNESCO mention her occupation as a philanthropist:

Occupations: So given the sources above she is in fact a Philanthropist, Speaker, Author, Former Politician, and if you insist on including a Former TV or Media Personality would be acceptable.

This is a list of Wikipedia pages that have “philanthropist” as a profession, that either don’t have a NGO or any reliable sources yet have that stated as their profession on Wikipedia. None of these pages meet the Wikipedia critieria for sources so I think you should also dispute the following pages for these subjects, if you claim your issues with the subject are not personal or biased then I assume you should also want to dispute the following pages:

I can send you hundreds of more profiles of people claiming to be philanthropist or with other professions that have no references at all. So you can edit, dispute, and work on, it will help your user account history seem unbiased. Good day.Gandharraj (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Summary of the labels (continued)[edit]

After the unfortunate and most bizarre incident with the (now blocked) user, there seems to be a dubious trend with this article. I saw it is the second time in just a couple of months that this article is vandalised by editors trying to add promotional information on the subject without due discussion in this talk page, and also the second time within that same period that it had to be fully protected. As you might remember the previous was in relation to sock-puppet network w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alibarzanjilo/Archive that focused solely on adding promotional information to this article (such as the subject's alleged net worth, future titles upon marriage, a non existent Harvard degree, etc) with total disregard for the discussion on the talk page. I think it would be helpful if the article's full protection does not end within a week, but runs its full course instead (ending Nov. 19). That will guarantee that proper, civilised discourse takes place in the talk page as we build the article up, and that users with COI don't disrupt and undo the work accomplished so far by all involved. I leave that notion on the table.

@Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: to resume the discussion on the labels, I believe we all agree: 1) the intro as it stands in the current edit is correct (for now), given her notoriety derives from her television activity. 2) Make the distinction in the "Career" section between the three talks: two are TEDx and only one is TEDx Youth (currently it reads that all are TEDx Youth, incorrectly). A.Val.sol (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So do you need to quiet anyone that is an opposition? This isn’t a communist country here. Plus the fact that you announce it, is almost like you’re praising a victory here. This is starting to look like you’re running a gang @A.Val.sol:.
Why mention past incidents that have nothing to do with the talk discussion ‘philanthropist’? As mentioned above, at Netflix you would understand that many people, production companies or PR teams can be behind their cast or clients profiles, especially when being on a “rich kids docu-series”. So I would stop using that against the subject, and refrain from mentioning old edits or past vandalism, we are now focused and living present day, and her occupations.
You speak of sock puppetry, well your account @A.Val.sol: is associated with sock puppetry, same IP account as 170.78.189.75, among other accounts and pages associated to pages I found that you’ve edited all related, but won’t get into since this talk is on the subject and her occupation as a Philanthropist.
As mentioned above, let’s use Malala’s page and Kim’s page as an example, Malala does so much repetitive TV and social media (much more than the subject appearing once in a docu series), so why not dispute Malala is solely an actress as well? Actually Malala hardly doesn’t any philanthropy nowdays. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai or change Kim kardashian page to ‘actress’ instead of ‘media personality’? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian she has been in reality tv for 20 years yet no one calls her “actress”. Please list reliable sources where Jaff is defined as an “actress”. The subject has a registered clothing line and organization found here: https://marcanet.impi.gob.mx:8181/marcanet/vistas/common/datos/bsqRegistroCompleto.pgi
An active online store with more than 900 designs so why not mention she’s a ‘business woman’ or “clothing designer” too? What about her three books that add up to more than 200 pages? An “author” or writer is anyone who creates something. The subject created three books. What about her organization that she runs in 15 different countries, where is the word “philanthropist” as mentioned in international news like https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/story/19732-Kurdish-Mexican-philanthropist-named-Forbes-Mexico’s-100-most-powerful-women? NBC news in this article define her as a “philanthropist and activist” here: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/7-san-diego-stories-that-you-couldnt-turn-away-from-in-2020/2469104/ surely these two sources are taken seriously. What about “speaker” after being a three time TEDx talk speaker.
Other wiki pages of women being called “philanthropists” were listed above, I checked and these women have no reliable references or Organizations. Why is it okay for them to be called “philanthropists” yet there is such an issue here with that term being used on this page?
@Ocaasi: said that there is an investigation going on with this page, evidence that there is off-wiki harassment and extortion happening with regards to this page. I question why @A.Val.sol: is so focused on just this page? As mentioned by @Gandharraj:, you started your user account just to downplay and focus on this specific page? Why every time the user @A.Val.sol: comments it’s just to solely downplay, harass, acuse or judge the subject?
@Ocaasi:, I think @A.Val.sol: is associated to this extortion, no way he would keep downplaying a page for the sole purpose of trying to improve this encyclopedia. There is clearly an extortion or personal reason behind. Alabihasan (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Each article is independent of others. Each article has their own set of sources that support the assertions made in that article. We are discussing this article on Hanna Jaff, not about Malala or Kim Kardashian. If articles about other women called "philanthropist" lack reliable references, then that assertion should be removed; the existence of an error in another article isn't a a reason to compound the problem by making the same error here.
Also, be careful of your accusations. You can get blocked for making personal attacks just like what happened recently. A.Val.sol's contributions don't suggest a single purpose account although in the short history there is heavy emphasis on Jaff, which is understandable given the problematic state the article was in. Your own account gives the impression of a sockpuppet, with the usual fingerprint of making a bunch of trivial edits solely for the purpose of becoming autoconfirmed to bypass article semi-protection. Whether that is true or not, I cannot say, but that is the impression you give.
I have no problem with including a statement in the article like "The Jaff Foundation describes itself as a philanthropic organization". As for the additional sources posted above, I haven't looked at them in depth although the first one I clicked on merely parroted, verbatim, the words on the Jaff Foundation website, which is not a good sign. I'll get to it in a few days and see if there's anything useful in that list. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia.
I think "media personality" is better than "actress" myself. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alabihasan I cannot, in all earnest, see how you got to the conclusion that I "harass, acuse or judge the subject" and that I am part of an "extortion". Grave accusations. this seems oddly targeted, yet I am not saying anything different from any of the other editors - in fact, on the labels topic, @Anachronist:, @Solid Reign: gave their opinions and reasons before me, and I happened to agree with their logic, not the other way around.
The reasons why these items were removed is documented and explained at length above, not by me, but by all the editors involved. So far there has been general consensus. If you disagree, say so. There is no need to throw personal attacks in frustration at anyone that disagrees.
That is not my IP address, still I find it extremely odd and concerning that you are attempting to reveal my identity. Not to mention that that IP address' edit history (which you provided above) shows no edits to this article or talk page, or related pages. Is this perhaps relating to something outside of Wikipedia? I echo @Anachronist:, you are bringing attention to your own account's edit history, created days ago, especially when adopting the exact same language, arguments and examples used by @Gandharraj: less than 24 hours after they were blocked for pushing the same arguments in an unacceptable way, as you are doing now.
@Anachronist:, Alabihasan believes I have a COI and given the wave of grave personal attacks (present and past) to manipulate the content of this article, I think it would be helpful if the article's full protection is extended. I certainly don't have the time personally to keep on top of it all daily, I think more time is needed to review everything fairly. Extending full protection would also guarantee that proper discourse takes place and consensus reached in the talk page before any editing takes place. That way users with a possible COI don't disrupt and undo the work accomplished so far by all involved. I am sure Alabihasan will agree, if the article's encyclopaedic integrity is really their main objective.
Agreed, media personality sounds better. A.Val.sol (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Val.sol: although I came here originally in an administrative role, I am now WP:INVOLVED and cannot take administrative action. I would recommend not extending full protection but downgrading to extended-confirmed protection, which would still allow experienced editors to make changes to the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I have reviewed the new sources posted by Gandharraj above. There are a few good things in that list that we can use. Here is my analysis:

So in that whole list, we have a couple of sources that would let us write some text about the Jaff Foundation, and one source that mentions Jaff as a philanthropist although that isn't the article focus.

Because the running the Jaff Foundation does appear to be Jaff's current occupation, the article could use a subsection about it. We have a couple of sources above that would be useful. The lead could say, without labeling her, that she runs the foundation. That is an established and non-controversial fact. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An elegant solution. The sentence "Jaff currently runs the Jaff Foundation" could be added to the current lead (with the rephrasing of actress to media personality).
@Anachronist: I agree, a long extended confirmed protection (ECP) is what this page requires after having been placed under full protection twice within two months, with a long semi-protection in the middle that clearly did not deter editing that disregarded the talk page consensus. It will allow the article to grow without digressing from the encyclopaedic path. A.Val.sol (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the sources claimed to be reliable by @Anachronist:, I agree the below should be mentioned on the page:

Jaff currently runs her non profit organization, Jaff Foundation for Education, I also believe her self taught English books should be added to the page as that is what her organization donates.

and rephrasing of actress to "Media personality".

I don’t think we should exclude reliable articles just because they are mentioned on the subjects website, she does have every right to keep her charity work organized on her platform and could of added that information after the article was published.

I believe we can now update/edit her page adding the relevant information @Anachronist: Billranny (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is also enough sources from the Political Party website to include her political roles as Undersecretary of Immigrants and Undersecretary of Civil Society in Mexico.

Her books are free on Amazon and kindle too. Which is clearly philanthropy work.

More articles that may help for her philanthropy work:

I don’t see the other links provided previously to be parroting her website, can’t find exact wording.

Links on politics:

Amazon free book:

@A.Val.sol: by trying to keep her page locked, then her page will not be updated with the correct and missing info. At the moment, it’s incorrect and downplaying her. It needs to be updated and once it is then you can suggest locking it. Billranny (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Anachronist: If you can kindly edit the subject’s page as the article now is incorrect. Billranny (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're a new-ish editor who is likely unfamiliar with how things work on Wikipedia, so I'll summarize the main points:
Even though I could edit the article as an administrator, it would be bad form for me to do so as an WP:INVOLVED editor while the article is fully protected. El C, the administrator who protected it, would have to unprotect it first.
Of the sources you list about philanthropy, one gives a trivial mention and the other says only that she "describes herself" as a philanthropist. That isn't sufficient for a Wikipedia article to label her that way in Wikipedia's voice.
As for some of the politics sources you listed, interviews are primary sources, which are not desirable in articles. As described earlier on this page, the appointed positions she has had are administrative roles within a political party, and don't equate to being a "politician".
Also, self-published books aren't necessary to list. We need only say that her organization donates her books. Nobody would dispute that. But "buy it here" or "download it here" Amazon links are inappropriate for Wikipedia. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the dispute has been resolved, let me know so I can lift the protection early. El_C 01:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: I'd reduce it to ECP, also agreed to by A.Val.sol above even though he isn't extended-confirmed yet. We've had a rash of autoconfirmed sockpuppets here (see the SPI closed in the past week), and ECP would at least let experienced editors participate. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. El_C 01:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have made some small additions to the article that I believe would be agreeable to all involved. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Anachronist: for editing the page, I read through the talk, and want to point out missing edits to consider:

1. The intro bio is repetitive, two sentences right after the other say the same thing, I suggest leaving one or the other: “is a Mexican television personality”. “In 2018 Jaff was part of the Mexican reality television series”.

2. “Reality television actress” is still in the infobox. Media personality would be okay although that’s not what she does today or career focus, may consider mentioning a “speaker, or businesswoman” (runs non profits and clothing brand supporting causes) or “activist”

3. Jaff “commissioned a set of clothing items” the website store has 900 different designs. Billranny (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph should describe the subject and provide a brief overview of the article. I don't see it as repetitive, but I expanded it a little bit. I updated the infobox also.
The puff piece cited for "commissioned a set of clothing items" does not support the assertion in this article. Unless a better source can be found, it needs to be revised or removed. We cannot cite the website store, and the number of items is an irrelevant detail. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Mexican, Mexican, Mexico, her race is repeated three times in two sentences in the intro bio. There is no need for it when it is already explained in the career box with details like the name of the show. I find it repetitive.
One sentence on the matter should suffice. If you want to add a second sentence maybe mention something else that is in the career box, like her being a speaker in Tedx, roles in PRI or her we are one campaign.Billranny (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are disambiguating terms for two different things. One "Mexican" refers to Jaff, the other "Mexican" refers to the TV series. This clarifies, for example, that she is not US media personality and did not appear in a Canadian TV series. However, I have removed the descriptor from the TV series because the title of the series makes it clear enough. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Would also suggest removing the word: “youth”. As the Tedx talks were not just youth so info is misleading.

“The show was discontinued after the first season.” This sentence is about the show, it’s irrelevant to the subject. Most docu series of this sort on Netflix are just one season.

Here are links I found on the subjects clothing brand:

Billranny (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: Can you look over the edits?? Billranny (talk) 15:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage Date[edit]

There is a mistake in the personal life section I think, the articles cited mention her engagement in February 2020, her wedding date has been later if at all, see this interview for example: https://www.quien.com/circulos/2021/02/05/hanna-jaff-cuenta-los-detalles-de-su-boda-con-el-aristocrata-harry-roper-curzon, which is of this year and mentions the wedding has not even happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.202.32.8 (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through this. The article you mention is referring to the wedding party which was canceled due to COVID. The subject married on February 17th, 2020, she even confirms it on her personal Instagram account:

Here are articles saying she married in Feb 2020:

Billranny (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a name's page[edit]

@Mjroots Requesting for the page's name to be changed to: "Hanna, Marchioness of Guadiaro".

Hanna Jaff married Lord Francisco de Borja Queipo, 6th Marquess of Guadiaro and heir of the Count of Toreno on September 16th 2022, becoming Marchioness of Guadiaro; I consider, the name of the page should be changed to her noble title, by recently marrying Lord Francisco de Borja Queipo, making her the Marchioness of Guadiaro. Falafosel (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Falafosel: - is there a reason that you can't move the page yourself? I don't know enough about the subject to be able to assess the validity of your request (which isn't saying that it isn't valid). Suggest that if you can't move the page yourself, you file a request at WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I don’t have an autoconfirmed editor account to be able to change the name myself. Do you want me to provide you with reliable sources to validate marriage? Falafosel (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Falafosel The question is not what you consider the name of the page should be, but what she is known as and how reliable sources refer to her. Can you please outline here why you think the change should be made on that basis? See WP:TITLE for more information. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News where they call her by her title:
https://ibusinessday.com/the-marchioness-of-guadiaro/
https://nybpost.com/hanna-marchioness-of-guadiaro/
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/hanna-marchioness-of-guadiaro-2023-06-14?mod=search_headline
News that confirm she married the Marquess of Guadiaro and they call her by her title:
https://www.nybusinesstimes.com/the-marriage-of-hanna-jaff-and-francisco-de-borja-queipo/
https://grammyweekly.com/francisco-de-borja-queipo-and-hanna-jaffs-wedding/
https://www.lafinancialtimes.com/francisco-de-borja-queipo-and-hanna-jaffs-wedding/ Falafosel (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The fact that she has a title isn't in dispute. We title articles according to WP:COMMONNAME. That is why our article on Bill Clinton, for example, isn't titled "President William Jefferson Clinton". We generally don't include personal titles in article titles either, except in extremely rare exceptions, such as Lord Byron and Mahatma Gandhi, but mostly because those are also the common names used to refer to those individuals. Most sources refer to Hanna Jaff as Hanna Jaff; indeed, the titles of some of those sources listed still do. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hanna_Jaff&oldid=1215559860"