Talk:Salma Yaqoob

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

Layout[edit]

I've just changed the layout a little to break it up and have added a few facts. 12th April 2006 UK 007

Better picture[edit]

Isn't the toronto picture [1] better then this naff mug shot? The mug shot shows us what she looks like, but the Toronto pic' does that and shows her campaining. Also what is the copyright status of both the images?--JK the unwise 12:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may be right. I posted both pictures and have been wieghing the pros and cons of each. Don't concern yourself about copyright status. I would not post them if they infringed copyright.

Cool. Could you please specify the licence of the file by adding the appropriate tag(s) to the image description page. See Image copyright tags.--JK the unwise 09:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do we need the little picture, its a little grainy thing taken from a wide shot (I took it). Does it add anything?--JK the unwise 07:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I donno, why not? For me it adds a great deal, putting her in a much more likeable light. Frankly, she looks way better in the pic you took (I am assuming you took it?) than the other, despite the difference in professionalism. Sam Spade 11:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wide shot

Yep I took it. Some else zoomed it. Here is the wide shot they made it from. I think its a waste of Wikipedia memory space, though someone recently informed me that bytes are as cheap as chips so maby I shouldn't shouldn't worry about that. Not sure attractivness should be a certeria for pictures. There is a third pic that was in at one stage [2] as discused above, it's probally better then the grainy zoomed one. Its an election mug shot, not sure about its copy right status maby usable under the promophoto copyright tag.--JK the unwise 14:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, I just like your pic way better (the zoomed in one tho). Sam Spade 14:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in question has now been replaced by a better picture (Image:Salma yaqoob smiling.jpg) so I'm putting the old one up for deletion.--JK the unwise 14:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have some pictures of Salma that I took myself. But I'm new to Wiki so would appreciate some help in getting them up. --Charliewbrown (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time and place of arrests[edit]

Did this take place in Sana'a, Republic of Yemen, or Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan? Needs correcting -- Amman is definitely NOT the capital of Yemen. BTW, "...during Christmas in Yemen..." is confusing, since Christmas is not celebrated or even noticed in Yemen. Better to say "late December" and provide a year. --RandallC 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her local community[edit]

"Despite differing views within her local community, her father was determined to support his children's education"


We need a citation for that (especially regarding "despite... views with her local..." Faro0485 (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just citation, clarification. What does it *mean*? That some people in the local community were opposed to children being educated? Or what? PrivateSponge (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libellous repeat addition to the page[edit]

Someone keeps adding a PDF to the article as evidence of extreme views. However, the article comes from a filesharing website, there is no indication it comes from the magazine it is claimed it is sourced from, and the author's name does not even match Salma Yaqoob's. If she can be shown to be the author of the article, by all means, add it. Otherwise, it's extremely poorly sourced, libellous content. Please do not re-add it until its incorporation can be justified on the discussion page. 90.219.33.76 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed with two researchers into British Islamist politics that the article on the Islamic Republic of Britain was written by Yaqoob. I have also confirmed that Salma Yaqoob was involved in the Abu Hamza/Yemen campaign.

[Bukhari] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bukhari (talk • contribs) 10:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and sources[edit]

A lot of the information on this entry is poorly sourced. I'm sure some of it can be verified using reliable sources but much of it doesn't seem to have any corresponding evidence anywhere and might be deliberate vandalism. I'll have a look to see if I can fix up somne of the erroneous claims and put some genuine sources where applicable. 94.0.107.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]


I have removed an entire paragraph and sentence from the 'activism' and 'politics' sections. Citation tags have been in place for months now and there are no available citations or reliable (in fact, any) sources of the information that was stated. To prevent libel, it has been removed. If any reliable sources can actually be found, then it can be reinstated. Thanks. 94.0.228.116 (talk)


I have removed the following unverifiable text from the entry itself as it has no RELIABLE sources as per Wikipedia guidelines. I will leave the text here for future reference and to ensure it isn't re-inserted without reliable sources, as this could be considered libellous. This text has been rpeatedly removed by various users and editors before so is probably propaganda.

She had been involved in the 'Justice for the Yemen Seven' campaign after her family became embroiled in the proceedings. This campaign was to support seven (later, eight) British Muslims who were accused by the Yemeni authorities for terrorist activities in its capital Sana'a in December 1998. After their conviction, protests and lobbying in Britain eventually resulted in release of most of them.[1] Those detained in Yemen included both the son and the stepson of the radical Islamist preacher, Abu Hamza al-Masri who is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

Yaqoob also wrote an article a magazine, Trends, edited by Inayat Bunglawala, which imagined an Islamic Republic of Great Britain. The article concluded with the author Salman Rushdie fleeing the country. [2]

This text SHOULD NOT be re-inserted without reliable third party sources. The first link in this copy directs you to a web hosting site and a word document with no connection to any offiical organisation, it might as well have been written by a user. The second is a pdf of an article which doesn't cite it's magazine source, is not linked to an official magazine site and, although it is claimed to be written by the subject (Salma Yaqoob), the author's name on the document is different and therefore inadmissable without additional verification. 86.128.217.153 (talk)

References

  1. ^ "Press Release from Justice for the Britons in Yemen" (doc). Retrieved 208-06-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. ^ The Islamic Republic of Great Britain

Respect vs Respect Unity Coalition[edit]

According to the Sunday Mercury's list of candidates[1], Salma Yaqoob is standing for the "Respect - Unity Coalition". Does anyone know a better source for what will be on the ballot paper? Will it say "Respect" or "Respect Unity Coalition" or "RESPECT"? Only a minor point but good to get it right.

Linkino (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Line-up of Birmingham's General Election candidates". Sunday Mercury. 2010-04-21. Retrieved 2010-04-29.

Notable Media Appearances[edit]

There are only 250 people a year appearing on Question Time, and it's a prestigious debate programme. 5 Appearances on this since 2006 seems notable, so I have included them here. Can anyone fill in more about the topics discussed?

The Guardian article is an obvious candidate for inclusion as it is long and solely focussed on the subject of the page.

Linkino (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mention has been added to this section of an unofficial appearance by Salma Yaqoob on Question Time in the days after 9/11. The link provided as reliable source is http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2234238 but not only has this page been created after this entry and therefore us unadmissable as a reliable source but it doesn't even mention her Sept 11 appearance. UK 007 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK General Election[edit]

The information that Salma Yaqoob is standing in the forthcoming parliamentary elections was missing. Is there some Wiki-rule I'm not aware of which explains why this was missing? Or was it just an oversight?

Linkino (talk) 11:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POI - Holding the highest honour available to a group doesn't mean that person is the most decorated person within that group.Marty jar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Her actions have been hugely controversial, added info with several national newspaper references.87.114.229.119 (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor removed an earlier amendment for the same reason - that it's already covered. I don't think quoting several political opponents is appropriate - that gets into extremely clear NPOV issues. The positions of both sides are stated as it stands, and could perhaps be expanded, but previous amendments haven't been NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marty jar (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above - unless you form a reasonable and logical justification for any expansion, there's currently no way of avoiding the massive NPOV issues. You're quoting entirely partisan political opponents at great length, and not the reply, which is unacceptable. You're quoting poor sources, and all of this is an addition to a section which already represents the POV you're expressing. Marty jar (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated, the event is covered within the 'Activism' section. It can be seen as controversial by some, and activism by others; however the 'Activism' section does provide both points of view and is adequately referenced. Stephenjh (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if as you say, it is "Seen as controversial by some and activism by others", then why have you removed the word "Controversy" from the "Activism" section?

  • Actually, I didn't remove it. Check the page history properly. Stephenjh (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her actions, barely alluded to in the article, have been received with massive controversy considering the puny standing of the Respect party in regards to power. I can give you a sackload of references from National newspapers and news channels all attesting to this. I can also give you a sackload of quotes from other British politicians literally condemning her actions. The section as it stands reveals nothing of this. Who describes it as 'activism'? Compare this to the vast majority who describe it as controversial (at best). The section here cannot be possibly seen as adequate.

You would surely agree that at the very least, the section should be renamed "Activism and Controversy"? 87.114.229.119 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed that as it's an unnecessarily unwieldy title. Two separate short sections may be more appropriate. Marty jar (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, noone actually names the section about the standing ovation incident as 'Activism' so there's no point challenging that. The activism section was already present. Someone simply decided to add the controversy to that Activism section. By rights, if you wish to add a 'Controversy' section, do so separately but please respect NPOV at all time - having checked there is around the same amount of opinion, articles and comment out there condemining Yaqoob as commending her. Although, that which criticises her seems to be from tabloids while those neutral or in support seem to be from more reputable sources including the BBC, Birmingham Post and Birmingham Mail. After all, much of the criticism against her is steeped excessively in the reporting of one comment made by a councillor Martin Mullaney of Birmingham City Council, who had been reprimanded for his comments. UK 007 (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the BBC ref to this and made a controversy section Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that I removed the Activism and Controversy title as it was unwieldy. The Controversy section is rather high up the page, but a better solution. The Activism section may need to be bumped up at some point. Marty jar (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I don't believe that the "Express and Star" should be the only source for this when their are BBC, SKY, Telegraph and Times sources out there. I added the BBC ref, but it was removedGaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the BBC source because it was used to substantiate the addition of the word "deliberate" to the description of Yaqoob's actions as "disrespectful", though the source cited did not use either of these terns. Nor did it describe this incident as a controversy, the other term it was used to justify. I have no objection to addition of the source itself, but I certainly object to its misleading use. RolandR (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well now the Activism section looks pointless. Two sentences and nothing about activist activities at all. Stephenjh (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, before every other person attacks this article with a butchers knife and ruins the perfectly good formatting that has been maintained on this entry over the last few years which has been progressive and neutral, a few things need clarification.

Prior to this recent incident about the soldier, the 9/11 information was included under 'activism' and should remain there as it includes information about her view of 9/11 in retrospect of being a victim of 9/11 backlash. She did receive criticism over the phrase 'reprisal attacks' much much later but not at the time and has also received praise for the comments, depending on how people view them and in which context. To now add 'she was criticised' in not NPOV as she follows by making it clear she does not support the perpatrators within the same speech.

The more recent material should remain under controversy but should be kept as basic facts and people can make up their own minds. This may still have to be edited down to simplify it with facts and verifiable sources, not selective sources. The facts aren't that difficult.

Also, just because some people were more passionately moved by the recent incident or even more aware of it, it doesn't mean it requires a great deal of attention within this entry as a number of incidents and events surrounding Salma, both perceived as highly positive and negative are available in mainstream media, many of which have had much coverage in newspapers than this incident and they are not even written about in as much detail as this, so we should keep things in perspective. All controbutions welcome in discussion but let's not start a war of words on the entry itself. Thanks. UK 007 (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Salma Yaqoob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salma_Yaqoob&oldid=1204966284"