Talk:Lauren Booth

Sister or Half-sister of Cherie ?

Who's really her mother ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.205.159 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Further was she really Catholic before she converted to Islam? There seems to be a vague association based on the fact that she is Cherie Blair's half sister, but from what I can tell she was not necessarily raised a Catholic nor does it mention whether she abandoned a childhood faith or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.33.60 (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Sarah to Lauren

Why did she change her first name, actually ? Because it sounds too jewish ? RCS (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Sarah is also a common name amongst Muslims. Don't be so ethnocentric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.169.2 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"terror sympathiser"

The labeling of Lauren Booth as terror sympathiser is original research and a violation of the Wikipedia:BLP policy. If you want to include this label, please find reputable sources which describe her as a terror sympathiser (possibly based on her visit to Gaza) and cite them here. The linked photo does not suffice. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

calling her a human rights activist does not make sense either. she exclusively focuses on Israel. A person who does not show any concern about uncountable worse offenses cannot be labeled to be an activist for human rights. This should be removed.MuratOnWiki (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it would be more neutral and accurate to call her a pro-Palestinian activist. Mezigue (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Residence

It said South of France. That has been corrected to South of Gaza. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.243.80 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Two children and a home in the south of France

This is a bit ambiguous. Does she keep her two children in the south of France? And her home there, is it maybe a caravan, in which case what's to stop her moving it to Italy, Spain or other nearby states? We should be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.148.59 (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the fact that she wants leave Gaza after a short stay, its obvious that she does not live there. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "wants to leave Gaza"? She came to the judenrein reichlet of Gaza and refuses to leave the way she came. This hate-filled anti-semite moved to Gaza with an intention to stay - that's usually the definition of "residence" for legal purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.243.80 (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? "Judenrein reichlet of Gaza"?--Nozzer71 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

"Ms Booth said yesterday she was anxious to get back to her two young children, aged five and seven, in the UK although the next "peace boat" is not due in Gaza for another three weeks."[1]

This quote shows that she does not want to stay in Gaza. 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that the scum-bag has at least *temporarily* moved to Gaza?

Ok 87.79.65.207 (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. "Temporarily moved to Gaza"! She has tried to leave Gaza and has not been able to do so. She has expressed concern about having to wait an unspecified number of weeks for the next maritime visitor to make it through because "That is a pretty long time for my kids to wait" (aged 5 and 7). I've changed the text as a result as the sarcasm in the "temporarily" addition by the person who views her as a "scum-bag" does not seem to me appropriate for a wiki page, and its also just plain inaccurate - about right for a blog site, but wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.20.123 (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"I am between the devil and the deep blue sea."

From here. She obviously means it literally, because she geographically can go neither into Israel, nor take a boat or swim back. The point is, is someone who calls Israel "the devil" and who changes her jewish sounding first name to a non-jewish sounding first name a Jew-hater? This is rethorical question. Oh, and here is a picture of her among "starving" Gazans. And another one. RCS (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS

I think we can agree that Lauren Booth's travelling companions are no human rights activistes per se, since they don't adress human rights violations by Hamas against fellow Palestinians in Gaza ([1], only human rights violations by Israelis against Palestinians; so calling the pro-Palestinian activists instead is much more a)correct, b)neutral and c)logical. Furthermore, calling the blockade of Gaza "alleged" is correct too, since there are indeed goods and trucks getting/allowed into Gaza. There is a restriction on the circulation of people and goods, alright, but not a blockade as such. Finally, it is indeed adding to the content and the POV of the article to tell and show that Booth has readily posed for photographs like a happy tourist in a happy place, namely Gaza ([2]), all the while comparing it to Darfur, where you find nothing of the abundance she is displaying. Cheers, RCS (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, those involved are human rights activists, calling them only pro-palestinian is a pov.
Second, the blockade of Gaza is a fact, nobody has ever called it "alleged".
Third, Booth posing for photographs in Gaza is not encyclodic, and therefore should not be included in the article. Dead-or-Red (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, those involved are only human rights activists in the eyes of people who share their POV. Again: do they challenge the human rights violations committed by Hamas? No, they don't, so it's objectively not true that they are campaigning for human rights (if they only do selectively so, they can't be called genuine human rights activists). RCS (talk) 15:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Second, nobody, really: http://www.google.com/search?num=30&hl=fr&safe=off&rls=com.microsoft%3Afr%3AIE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ADBR&q=%22alleged+blockade%22+gaza&btnG=Rechercher&lr=

Third, Booth posing for photographs as part of her trip to Gaza and her trying to rise attention to what she calls the plight of the Gazans is absolutely encyclopedic as it is part and parcel of what makes her so heroic to some and so odious to others. You cant' dismiss Harry's Place and hundreds of other serious blogs so easyly! RCS (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, you are asserting what you believe a human rights activist is and is not. You are adding your pov to the article.

Second, the article I linked to in the text, and thousands of articles all cite that there is a blockade in Gaza, even the Israeli state freely admits it. Yet again, this is you adding your pov to the article.

Third, there are thousands of photos of Lauren Booth in a thousand different situations. The photos are totally irrelevant to the article.

Fourth, no blog shoud be used as a source on wikipedia, which is why I removed it and replaced it with ynet news article saying the same thing. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Some peace activists, really: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/113530. I don't have to tell you that this Greta Berlin was the mastermind of the Gaza trip? RCS (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Greta Berlin was one of those who worked on the idea, but "mastermind", no. This is an article about Lauren Booth, and not one about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My take on this: (1) None of the sources characterize her or the others on the boat as "human rights activists" (only as "foreign activists" or "left wing activists"), so it is not appropriate for the article to use that phrase. (2) The business about the photos is a pov-push and does not belong in the article. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have added a ref where they are clearly characterised as human rights activists. Dead-or-Red (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the phrase to a simple unqualified "activists", on the grounds that there are multiple reputable primary sources that characterize them in different ways, and Wikipedia should not be deciding which of them is correct. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, i did it before you but i was reverted by that other POV-pusher (my guess) Dead-or-Red. Let's see... RCS (talk) 17:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That she is a human rights activist should not be disputed, so I have added it to the lead. I still contest the revert though. The boat had all maner of people on board, including a holocaust survivor. To deny that these people were there to highlight human rights issues in Gaza is mind boggling. Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

1. As mentioned above, photos of Booth in a supermarket are not encyclopedic content, and hence should not be included.

The photo in the supermarket is photojournalism by a RS agency. Your point is a naked assertion. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2. The sources that were inserted to "support" the claim that Booth has been widely criticised did not infact do so. This is why I have removed this statement from the article.

I don't get this one. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If editors wish to include this text yet again, can they please discuss before doing so. Dead-or-Red (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If editors want to remove sourced statements, they ought to at the very least build up consensus. Failure to do is failure to respect the work of others. I urge you to revert yourself, consistently with the above. -- Y not? 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

All that Y says is correct. Dead-or-Red, you are editing disruptively against consensus now. IronDuke 20:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he's not editing against consensus. But he's removing the legitimate work of others on insufficient grounds, where there's no consensus either way. -- Y not? 20:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I count him reverting against me, you, Interwebs, and RCS on this subject... if it's not consensus, it's pretty close, no? IronDuke 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

A photograph alone is not a reliable source, it should not be included as a reference. I am not familiar with Arutz Sheva and whether or not it would be considered a reliable source, but, nevertheless, Wikipedia should not be using the words "claims" or "claimed" in reference to her statements, and we most certainly should not be coining them "sensationalist." Lastly, one or two media outlets "criticizing" her statements (or reporting on blogs that may have done the same) are not sufficient enough for inclusion under WP:UNDUE. I have rephrased the sentence on her comments to not fail wp:aww; without some reliable sourcing, the "criticism" allegations will need to remain out of the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, I notice in the history of the article there was a statement that she has since left Gaza (source), since removed. Anyone familiar with reason for the removal?   user:j    (aka justen)   02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with Arutz Sheva and whether or not it would be considered a reliable source. Right... you don't know the source... what to do? Delete it! What an awful edit, and what an awful excuse. And what of the other sources you gutted out of the article, that are so far undiscussed? Also, you badly misunderstand WP:UNDUE. It would apply, somewhat, if media outlets all over the world were suggesting that LB was correct and that Gaza was like a concentration camp, and that there were no groceries with well-stocked shelves, but a few outlets contradicted that. We'd handle that situation by making sure the reader understood there was a majority view, though a few people had taken exception. We'd still mention it, even according to WP:UNDUE. But that isn't even the case here. No one is suggesting she did not visit the gorcery, or that she was not criticized for it. It isn't a major part of the article, it's entirely consistent with WP BLP. This isn't even close to an issue.

Right now it looks like about 4-2 against what you're doing. Justen, get consensus -- and get informed -- before you make another edit, please. IronDuke 02:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not necessary for the removal of commentary that Booth's statements were "sensationalist" as Wikipedia is not in the position to opine on the reality or accuracy of her words. Also, Booth didn't "claim" what she said, she, quite simply, said it (see wp:aww). Were you referring to something else?

Sorry, yes, as to Arutz Sheva, the Wikipedia article on the subject seems to pretty clearly indicate that organization is not a reliable source for a biography of a living person. The wp:rs policy clearly says: "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." The Arutz Sheva article clearly indicates the organization has a specific viewpoint to promote, a viewpoint that apparently directly involves the issues at hand here. So, yes, wp:blp requires controversial statements, such as that alleging criticism towards Booth, to be impeccably sourced; I do not believe Arutz Sheva meets that requirement.

Finally, her visiting a grocery store is, quite frankly, a ridiculous issue. Wikipedia cannot source something using the photograph itself; we need a reliable source commenting on the photograph. Is it an interesting photograph, given the context? Could it make great political fodder? Is the idea of "going to a modern grocery store in an alleged concentration camp" a great case of political gotchaism? Sure on all counts. But it would have to be reliably sourced before it can be included in the article, and as of right now it is not.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that it is a "ridiculous issue" is of no moment whatever. What matters is what reliable sources think. And what of the other three sources you removed? IronDuke 12:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reversion specifically restored the word "claimed" over the word "said," quite blatantly contradictory to wp:aww. I have restored neutral wording. As to the three sources:

• The Jerusalem Post citation is used to source this statement: "Booth was criticized" for her statements. The article mentions nothing of any criticism directed at Booth.
• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency citation is also used to source the same statement. The piece which could be called "criticism" clearly is editorial; it does not cite any individual or organization (aside from the JTA itself) which has criticized Booth.
• The Agence France-Presse photograph itself, via Getty, is used as a source for the remainder of the sentence.

The Jerusalem Post could be used to cite the facts, if the situation were notable. The JTA piece is editorial. One source and one editorial does not sustain wp:notnews nor wp:not. Our thoughts on what the photograph shows in relation to her statements about Gaza is synthesis and original research. You seem determined to keep this content in there; I have no interest in this person and had never heard of her before yesterday. I have no particular sympathy to her or her apparent cause.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to accept here that we are an encyclopedia, and this is a biography; we are not a newswire or place to reprint a fleeting opinion or editorial (and certainly not to insert our own). Very often supporters and detractors of an individual or their viewpoint strive to include tidbits of news which they feel glorify or vilify, respectively, the target. This is not the place for it. Her being unable to leave Gaza appears to be notable and reliably sourced; her shopping for groceries while in Gaza is not, so far as reliable sources are concerned. If there was any significant level of media attention on the issue, it could have been included; with one source, a photograph, and an editorial, however, it did not rise to a biographical occurrence, and it appears now unlikely to do so.

I have restored neutral wording and removed content which clearly is not notable. Just as I recommended to your colleague on this article, User:Dead-or-Red, I would suggest you seek an opinion from an uninvolved party to regain perspective. I would strongly caution you against further wholesale reverts to the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But what if I desperately want to smear her, to tell the whole wikipedia-reading world about what a lying (censored) she is? How am I to achieve that? She gets to walk around and yap and we can't even bring ourselves to point out that she has been called out for this? -- Y not? 04:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If she's been called out by a reasonable number of reliable sources, absolutely. That has not yet happened as one or two don't rise to the level of notability required for a brief biography. I would recommend you start calling up editors in chief at some newspapers!   user:j    (aka justen)   06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Funnily, J, you keep on erasing the fact that she also compared Gaza to a concentration camp - and explicitly a nazi concentration camp, not one like the Brits set up for the Boers - in addition to comparing it to ~Darfur. Do you have a revisionist agenda? RCS (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to make your point. The gist of her comments are in the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck finding the "revisionist edits" noticeboard. You might want to take a look at wp:undue and wp:npov on your way there, though. As to your assertion that I feel "incomfortable with the word 'concentration camp'", you are absolutely right. The horrors of the Holocaust, and other genocides since, do make me uncomfortable, and have motivated me in my life to care about and do something about what is happening in my world. But, quite frankly, that has nothing to do with my editing of Wikipedia, nor does it prevent me from recognizing a clear attempt to bias a biography of a living person when I see that happening.   user:j    (aka justen)   07:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For a change, you could also watch the interview she gave to George Galloway on the phone from Gaza, where she goes to great lenghts to explain that Gaza is first and foremost a concentration camp. http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/09/12/lauren-booth-in-gaza/#comments. RCS (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC):::::::For a change, you could also watch the interview she gave to George Galloway on the phone from Gaza, where she goes to great lenghts to explain that Gaza is first and foremost a concentration camp. http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/09/12/lauren-booth-in-gaza/#comments. RCS (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And i dare remind you of WP:OWN, by the way. RCS (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

RCS, please take a moment, and please go actually read wp:npov. And then take just one more second to look at wp:undue. I cite these so often, and I'm always afraid that people just glance right over the acronyms and keep telling themselves that I'm just their enemy, trying to keep them from making Wikipedia "right." It's pretty clear you have great contempt for this Lauren Booth. Do you understand how that clouds your judgment in editing her article? Do you understand that you are picking and choosing her quotes which you believe make her look petty? Do you understand why that is not the role of Wikipedia?   user:j    (aka justen)   07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake, it was the concentration camp comparison and not the Darfur comparison that made the headline of both the Yediot Aharonot and the Jerusalem Post article.

JPost headline: "Booth: Gaza a massive concentration camp"

YA headline: "Blair sister-in-law: Gaza world’s largest concentration camp"

If one of these comparisons had not to be in this very article here, i should rather be the comparison with Darfur. As it is however, bo(o)th have to figure here. RCS (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(<--outdent) Justen: Thanks for taking the time to look at the sources you removed, and providing commentary.

As for your cautioning me regarding “wholesale reverts,” I’m assuming that’s a droll bit of irony on your part. It is of course you who have been making such reverts. I have been trying to find a compromise version in the language, and in what sources we’re using; you fixate on one word and simply slash a sentence out of the article without trying to fix it. I think it’s safe to say that’s the very antithesis of collaborative editing. It is, in fact, what your colleague Dead-or-Red was up to when he logged out to violate 3rr — lucky for him, after he was blocked you picked up his wholesale reversions without missing a beat.

Your points:

• The Jerusalem Post citation is used to source this statement: "Booth was criticized" for her statements. The article mentions nothing of any criticism directed at Booth.

Why… yes. Yes, you’re right. The article does not use the word criticize. Is it possible you caught me making something up out of whole cloth? I sure hope not. Let’s take a look and see what it does say, and where I can have gotten such an outlandish notion.

The full quote from the article is this:

"I want to say thank you for using the word concentration camp because the word prison has been applied in the last few years and that's a lie. In a prison you get three meals a day, a nourishing diet, visits from outsiders and some hobbies and rehabilitation and a date for your release," she said. A few days before the interview, Agence France-Presse released a picture of Booth shopping in a grocery store in Gaza.

So…what do you suppose that last sentence is doing there? Perhaps it’s a non-sequitur having nothing whatever to do with what came before? Possibly. Or perhaps more likely, they are making a juxtaposition that is blindingly obvious to most educated readers. Which do you suppose? Is there a way to get across what’s happening in jpost without using the word “criticize”? Or is it better to hack it away without trying to make it better?

But I have a second cite now from jpost, which I’m hoping will allow you to see things more clearly.

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency citation is also used to source the same statement. The piece which could be called "criticism" clearly is editorial; it does not cite any individual or organization (aside from the JTA itself) which has criticized Booth.

What a strange point. The JTA doesn’t have to cite any individual to criticize Booth, they can do so themselves. Which they do. “A few days before the interview, the French press agency released a picture of Booth shopping in a well-stocked grocery store in Gaza, the Jerusalem Post reported, belying the grim picture she painted of the Palestinian enclave.” That’s criticism.

• The Agence France-Presse photograph itself, via Getty, is used as a source for the remainder of the sentence.

Yes… because it is a source. And?

Her being caught in film in a well-stocked Gaza grocery received enough attention to merit mention. It isn’t necessarily a negative reflection on her, merely that there are those who take issue with her characterization. I could understand the zeal with which people were deleting well-sourced material if it was somehow horrifically damaging to Ms. Booth, but this really isn’t. It’s just a reaction to her statement, which is not just totally okay to have in an article like this, but necessary. You like directing folks to pages, take a look at WP:CENSOR: that’s the effect your edits are having. IronDuke 22:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too much of the current edit appears to be OR, and hence doesnt belong. The article still pushes a pov, which it should not do. I would like to quote from wp:not:

Many things are in the news and are reported by numerous reliable and verifiable sources that are independent of the subject, yet are not of historic or encyclopedic importance. (...) A (...) sensationalized event (...) may be notable enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage in the news, but not be of encyclopedic importance. (...) Events which only garner transitory attention do not merit encyclopedic articles, and may be better suited for news portals such as Wikinews. (...) For those who wish to write about current events, including those which may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia, our sister project, Wikinews is specifically intended to cover current events, and also permits original reporting that is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I would suggest that those who wish to write extensively on Lauren Booths trip to Gaza do so at wikinews, and leave her biography to cover encyclopedic content. Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that bit at wp:not. Where were you getting it from? What I see is this:

# News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

I was going to bold some sections for emphasis but really, the whole graf underscores the points editors have been making on this page. IronDuke 23:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here Dead-or-Red (talk) 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. That's just an essay, though, nowhere near policy. IronDuke 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved opinion

I've come here after Justin posted at the BLP Noticeboard. It seems to me that the article is basically in order. The only thing that reads oddly is the sentence about her quotes on the "concentration camp" and "Darfur". Specifically, the grocery store point is hard to justify as an element in this biography, since it is about the situation in Gaza and not about Booth herself. Another minor point is that only one source is needed for Booth leaving Gaza. Having too many points and too many references tends to hike up the importance of this individual's activities beyond what their real-world significance. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean, Judith. The Gaza/grocery point refers specifically to an analogy Booth has made, which some appear to find to be non-illuminating. Does it refer to Booth herself? Undoubtedly. It has to do with no other subject than herself, in fact,. IronDuke 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Im sure she has a million opinions on a million different things; the question is, why would we need to include them here? Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We would include them, if they were well-sourced and notable. The statement she made re Gaza, and the reaction, are well-sourced and notable. IronDuke 19:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it notable? Hundreds of people have said the same or similar things about Gaza.Dead-or-Red (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it verges on coatracking. AFP simply issued the photo. The JTA press agency used the availability of the photo to say "and by the way, she was wrong about Gaza, look at the photo, here's a well-stocked shop". That was editorialising rather than reporting of bare facts. It appears in Jerusalem Post only because they repeated chunks of the JTA release verbatim. These two reliable sources on this occasion aren't independent of each other. We can't follow these sources down the road of putting two-and-two together to make a point. All we need to carry is: Booth went to Gaza, she said this, she said that, she left. Nothing more is notable in this article. The situation in Gaza is the subject of other articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how it's a coatrack article. The majority of the article isn't even about this, and the issue dosn't portray her in some spectacularly bad light. It makes no difference at all that JTA was editorializing, plenty of editorials are used as sources. And it makes no difference if jpost took up the point raised in that editorial (and I'm not sure they in fact did). JTA and jpost are independent of each other, multiple, independent reliable sources commented on the pic and its relation to Booth's earlier comments. For WP purposes, this is a no-brainer; we discuss it. And DoR, it's notable because she is notable, made what some consider a provocative statement, and was photographed in a situation that seemed to belie her earlier remarks. If that same sequence of events had happened to/with Britney Spears, it would probably go in her article. IronDuke 21:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Last points and then I'm leaving the article for others to improve. I didn't say it was a coatrack article. If you look back at my first comment, I said it was fine except for this one part of one sentence. I see you agree that JTA was editorialising - it's unnecessary to follow that here. The comment on the photo has little to do with Booth's provocative statements. The JTA/JPost point is that the photo tends to disprove that the economic situation in Gaza is dire. It is only tangentially related to hyperbole about concentration camps. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You said it was "coatracking." Perhaps you were speaking of something that does not exist, coining a new term. There isn't really any such thing, articles are coatracks or they are not. This article is clearly not. It appears you agree, so that part is settled. The Jerusalem Post newspaper tie in of the "hyperbole" re the camps and the photo is not tangential, it is its sole raisone d'etre. They would not have made that point without that photo, the photo is the point. IronDuke 23:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Undent. She's a public figure who's running around making a point. And when she puts her foot in her mouth, it's our journalistic duty :) to cover that, via RS. This is not undue or coatracking or whatever - it's proper. -- Y not? 13:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats the point, its a clear pov push so shouldnt be here. Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

DoR, you're just making an argument by assertion. If that were compelling, my reply of "No, it isn't," would be equally so. IronDuke 17:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You yourself mentioned Britney Spears, a person who has been subjected to much more criticism than Booth. Yet if you look at the Spears article it covers the key aspects of her life and not poorly sourced OR and coatracking. Simply, this article always has pushed a particular pov which it should not do! Dead-or-Red (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, taking Britney as our template. 1) There's tremendously negative stuff in there. Far, far beyond anything in this article. [2]. 2) You endorse the sources in that article. Let's see. We have people.com, eonline, Harper's Bazaar, ExtraTV... the list goes on. Is Jpost a lesser source? No? Okay, so your argument that the section we are discussing is "poorly sourced" just disappeared. 3) I really wouldn't perist in the coatracking claim. Judith does not appear to understand or have read that page -- have you? I think if you take a look, you'll see it really has nothing to do with our dispute here. The point I would push if I were you is WP:UNDUE. That argument would ultimately fail as well, IMO, but it would be makeable with a straight face. Coatrack arguments are not. IronDuke 18:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The quality of the sources you have used is not the issue per se. Let us examine the sentenance in question:

though it was suggested (by who? weasel statement) that a photograph of Booth in a well-stocked Gaza grocery (why is a person shopping of any use to an encyclopedia?) “bel[ied] the grim picture she painted of the Strip.” (this quote comes from an op-ed, why is the author of note, and why should his opinion be of any significance to an encyclopdeia?)

Only one of the three sources at the end of sentance directly relates to the sentance, thats why people are saying that it is poorly sourced, and boardering on OR.
Finally, the article is much more in breach of coatracking than it is undue. It is clearly doing the following "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject". The sentenance should go. Dead-or-Red (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to tell you: you don't seem to understand WP policies at all. Hard to know where to begin, but I'll try. Again: there is no such thing as "coatracking." An artcile that's a coatrack exists solely or mainly for the purpose of pushing some sort of POV or scandal. Is that what this article is doing? No? Is WP:COAT even policy? No: it's an essay. Okay, great, no more coatrack talk then. You've been talking about how the sources aren't good enough, and now you say that isn't the issue. Maybe we can settle on the idea that you don't know? Moving on to what else you don't seem to get: it isn't a weasel statement. How do I know? Because it's freaking sourced right there in the same sentence. Op-eds from RS's are quoted in WP all the time. If you don't like that, you have a bigger job ahead of you than just this one article. And it's from JTA, and jpost, and other sources as well. This is well-sourced, and notable. How do I know it's notable? Because you wouldn't be throwing up these imaginary roadblocks if you weren't aware that the point had some real significance. This is a sensitive subject, and needs editors who really get policy to edit them -- regardless of their POV. You just aren't getting what these policies are about, and I don't feel like I'm someone you're really willing to learn from, otherwise, I'd be happy to teach. IronDuke 02:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1. There clearly is such a thing as coatracking, otherwise we wouldnt be discussing it! And I am well aware that it is not policy, but good practice, thank you very much. Myself and others have never called the whole article a coat rack, merely that this particular part of it borders on it.

2. I have never said the sources are not good enough, only that they do not support the text in the article.

3. There are two issues that centre around the sentenance, (i) why the words of Herb Keinon are of merit in the article, and (ii) How notable is the accusation?

4. Finally, your patronising comments are not welcome. Dead-or-Red (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a compromise wording and hope this will be acceptable to both sides. Since we agree it is an editorial comment, it is wise to attribute it. I know that JP got it from JTA but JP is preferable to cite, as a mainstream newspaper and reliable secondary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly better, though why include the image itself? I still feel there is no need for it. Dead-or-Red (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why fewer sources is better, but I'd accept this. The picture is useful as that sparked the critcism we cite. DoR, I'm sorry you felt aggrieved by my remarks. It was not my intention to aggravate you. IronDuke 16:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gaza section and blatant pro-Israel POV

Here is the part in question:

"Booth also said that she believed the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur" and called Gaza "the largest concentration camp in the world today," though the Jerusalem Post suggested that a photograph of Booth in a well-stocked Gaza grocery "bel[ied] the grim picture she painted of the Strip"."

Ok, so whoever wrote this part is limiting the parameters for discussion of the humanitarian situation in Gaza to Lauren Booth and the JPost.

First we get Booth's opinion - which makes sense, this is HER article. And then we get the JPost as if they are an authority on Booth's opinions. Meaning, why do we get JPost's opinion? Are they the only news source to comment on Booth? The notion that they juxtapose her comments next to some picture as if THAT is empirical proof of WHATEVER is going on is blatant POV.

The author of this part is first setting up Booth's opinion and then criticizing it via the JPost article.

However, if this is the case, why not mention all the numerous opinions of the NGOs - Amnesty International, B'Tselem, HRW, etc. Is there any MEANINGFUL dissent on this issue? The pro-Israel camp will of course say there is no humanitarian crisis. They will say that Gaza is perfectly fine. Absolutely ridiculous of course. But this has no place in the article.

Agreed, if consensus has shifted I suggest we remove the final part of the paragraph. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It IS empirical that somebody who is photographed smiling smugly in a well-stocked grocery ([3]) while claiming that the very place she is being photographed in is suffering of hunger, starvation and need, is either a shameless liar or a very twisted and sick mind. BUT i agree that this article is not the place to psychoanalyze Mrs. Booth. In my opinion she is completely crazy, but this is her and her believer's problem, not mine. --RCS (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the sopaboxing of the topic starter here aside, it is notable what people thought of her opinion on the conflict in Gaza. This article isn't merely to serve as a vehicle for Ms. Booth's observations. IronDuke 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that she is a human rights activist is insulting to human right activists. Human rights are universal. Booth however focuses on Israel. This doesn't entitle her to be called rights activist. Even more, she mocks the massacred, burned, raped, and tortured in Darfur by stating they are no different in Gaza. Evidently she is anti-Semitic. I propose such addendum if noone disagrees.MuratOnWiki (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Booth does not accept "shia" or "sunni" labels at this time

Someone keeps trying to label Ms. Booth a Shia, but she has explicitly stated she is not adopting such labels at this time. See references below:

Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1325231/Why-I-love-Islam-Lauren-Booth-defiantly-explains-Muslim.html?ito=feeds-newsxml "I have a relationship with a couple of mosques in North London, and I am hoping to make a routine of going at least once a week. I would never say, by the way, whether I will take a Sunni or a Shia path."

And here: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148483.html "I have embraced Islam and I am not taking one particular path at this time and I am not going to feel compelled to announce that I am from one part of Islam or another because I am going follow what Allah is leading me too and I think it is quite a big enough jump that I have come this far from a secular existence into Islam and I hope that people can celebrate that with me from the Muslim world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.169.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Former religion?

This article was in the 'converts to Islam from Judaism' and 'converts to Islam from Catholicism' categories. I can't find any sources that actually state Lauren Booth was either Jewish or Catholic before converting to Islam. Her mother was Jewish, but she was not raised in the religion; and her half-sister Cherie is Catholic, but that doesn't mean she is. If anyone has any sources about her former religion, could they please provide them? Robofish (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Parents?

Lauren Booth is described here as daughter of Tony Booth and Pamela Smith (Cohen). But in Antony Booth, a Pamela Smith (Cohen) is not mentioned as one of Tony Booth's four spouses. So one of these articles must be incorrect. --Jeppi (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tony's is patchy. Bromley86 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

suggestion

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campingtrip (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Religious conversion and criticism

The Header Religious conversion and criticism is misleading and ambiguous. There must be a clear separation between Booth's personal decision to convert to Islam, and criticisms that relate to her professional conduct as a journalist or activist. There is nothing wrong with having "religious conversion" and "criticism" as separate sections. However, the juxtaposition seems to imply that her personal decision to convert to Islam is something worthy of critical comment. This appears to be a subtle attack on Booth's freedom of worship. My suggested edit is to delete "and criticism" and make "Criticism" a separate section.--Campingtrip (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotation Bias

Julie Burchill criticised Booth both for a career in which, "she works as a paid stooge for the murderous Iranian regime's television channel" and asked of her conversion "what sort of woman freely converts to a religion which supports the oppression, torment and murder of thousands of Christians, homosexuals and spirited women, worldwide, every year? The sort of woman who writes love letters to a serial killer, I reckon.

The above quotation from Julie Burchill is loaded with anti Islamic bias and what is worse is that she takes an unjustifiably hostile view towards Booth’s conversion to Islam. Nothing in Burchill’s quotation can be regarded as objective criticism regarding some aspect of Booth’s personal or professional conduct. This gives the article an anti-Islamic bias hidden behind what appears to be a factual quotation. Besides, who is Julie Burchill and why does the author think that she (Burchill) has the moral authority to pass Judgement on Booth's personal decision to convert to Islam? Isn't Lauren Booth entitled to freedom of religion?

The Independent's official diarist commented: ‘Can you really claim to have converted to Islam when you’ve only read the first 60 pages of the Koran? What if you don’t like the ending?’

The above quotation is misplaced. why must the independent's diarist be implicitly regarded as an "authenticator" of religious conversions to Islam (as if such authentication were even necessary)? That is what the quotation from the diarist suggests. Furthermore, Booth's conversion to Islam is fact and not a claim and this must be stated emphatically. Not only is the quotation misplaced, it suggests that converting to Islam requires reading a certain minimum number of pages of the Koran and this is not true.

Criticisms must be relevant and neutral as per Wikipedia's own policy. The above quotations, upon objective analysis, are mere expressions of hostility towards Lauren Booth's decision to convert to Islam and not only is this unfair, but quite dangerous since they touch on an Individual's freedom of worship. --Campingtrip (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Dalal sa April 2013 edit

You've edited the article twice today and I've reverted both. Your first edit was to remove well sourced information on her conversion, replacing it with a poorly sourced primary source (a video without time reference). Your second edit was to remove the assertion that she works for Press TV, one that is backed up within the article under Journalistic career.

I see you've edited both of those changes back into the article again, so I'll revert it again. Please explain here why you want to make these changes. Bromley86 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again. I don't want to get into an edit war and, frankly, don't have an axe to grind re. when she actually converted. But, on the one hand, we have her actual words in the 3rd cite and two supporting articles in the 19th & 20th cites. On the other we have the 59 minute video clip you're linking to. At least tell us where she says what you think indicates she converted sooner than 2010.

i.e. "Then came the night in the Iran­ian city of Qom . . . I knew then I was no longer a tourist in Islam but a traveller inside the Ummah . . .. Was I ready to convert? "[4] Bromley86 (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Video confirmation (Press TV) that conversion happened after Qom visit:[5] 00:30 onwards. Bromley86 (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauren Booth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701193721/http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/alerts/item/1735-update-lauren-booth-and-sami-al-hajj-join-cageprisoners-as-patrons to http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/alerts/item/1735-update-lauren-booth-and-sami-al-hajj-join-cageprisoners-as-patrons

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lauren Booth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219011841/http://www.laurenbooth.org.uk/?page_id=2 to http://www.laurenbooth.org.uk/?page_id=2

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)