Talk:Naz Shah

Requested move 12 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the proposed title is the most common name. History swap required as there was some not-insignificant history at the target title. Jenks24 (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Naseem Shah → Naz Shah – WP:COMMONNAME. Media coverage usually refers to her as Naz, as does her Parliamentary profile and her Twitter Move allowed by admin only for unclear reasons. News favours Naz over Naseem by a large margin AusLondonder (talk) 00:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Naseem is her birth and childhood name, Naz looks like a shortening, but all indications are that it is now used as her proper name, with the offical MP webpage http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/naz-shah/4409 using "Naz", in addition to newspapers, it is clear that "Naz" is her used and accepted name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016

Please change "She voted for George Galloway at the Bradford West by-election in 2012" to read "She claims to have voted for George Galloway at the Bradford West by-election in 2012" or similar.

Voting in UK elections is secret and the existing statement is incapable of verification.

 Done - although I used "stated" instead of "claims", which some see as a value-laden phrase - Arjayay (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

racism

Article needs coverage of Shah's aggressive, race-hatred of Jews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The article already covers several antisemitic comments from Shah, are there any more comments that you think should be added? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The section should be headed racism, with the present headers used as sub-heads. As it stands, a reader scanning the page - as we all do - misses the issue, which is the overt racism of her attitudes over the period of several years.160.39.35.48 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The article should also note the comment by Rabbi Rudi Leavor of the Bradford Reform Synagogue that Naz Shah is "a friend of the Jews".[1] RolandR (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Withdraw some of the above comments, please: anti-Zionism not = anti-semitism!--5.150.92.174 (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not quote Ken Livingstone's words?

Why not quote Ken Livingstone's words?

>following his allegations that Hitler was a Zionist

He made no such allegations. Words have meaning and distorting them brings Wikipedia into disrepute. What he said is not long.

"What he said is not long". Do you mean long or wrong? If you mean long, that's pretty meaningless. If you mean wrong, then you are saying what Livingstone said is correct. And what Livingstone said is wrong. Hitler never backed Jewish migration to Israel. For many reasons. Wythy (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

131.111.184.102 (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a very legitimate issue. I think I've fixed it now so that it directly and accurately quotes what Livingstone said. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Why should this article explain what Livingstone said? Is it not sufficient to mention he was expelled from the party for anti-semitic remarks?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, he was expelled from the party trying to explain away comments made by Shah. I'm not bothered either way. The article on Livingstone can contain his comments from the interview. I was only really interested in ensuring that if we quote his comments in this article, they are accurate. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I am just not so much convinced we should quote them at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps because you appear to take an uncritical view of the Labour Party's action against him, and are seeking to support that by concealing the de facto relative innocence of Livingstone's intervention? BTW, Livingstone was suspended, not expelled, Tom Morris.---188.39.71.98 (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested additional source -- in quoting responses to the controversy around Shah, it's probably relevant to quote another extremely prominent UK voice, George Galloway. See his statement: http://ahtribune.com/religion/856-naz-shah-anti-semitism.html. Thanks.SM-Mara (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What in particular about Galloway's statement do you feel needs to be included? And on what basis, given he is neither an elected MP nor a member of the Labour Party and is currently on course to get 0-2% of the vote and end up fifth in the London mayoral election? —Tom Morris (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. He's a well-known and prominent person whose commentary could add breadth to discussion, but perhaps doesn't represent additional info not already covered. Was seeking range of sources in following the topic. SM-Mara (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Galloway is the former MP for Bradford West who Shah beat in the May 2015 election, so I believe his comments are relevant. This quote below is the part that I think is relevant;

"It is said, and seems to have been accepted in some unlikely places, that Shah is guilty of "anti-Semitism". She is not, at least on the evidence which has emerged to date. Her comments are half-witted to be sure, and their appearance at this time will prove a mighty headache for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (who is actually what this is all about) and may prove very significant in British politics over the next few months. But they are not anti-Semitic."

I have tried to give a summary of the quote. Please feel free to improve what I have added. Ulgarg (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just been trying to find out something about the "American Herald Tribune" but can't find anything about them except a small amount on their webpage. Do we know anything about them, SM-Mara? Are they reputable? Ulgarg (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Galloway is way outside mainstream opinion on this issue, which Naz Shah has in any case accepted. As has often been said, Galloway has regularly "crossed the line" on applicable issues, and we are not required to cite fringe opinions. Regardless as to whether American Herald Tribune counts as RS, which looks unlikely, his viewpoint should not be quoted here. Philip Cross (talk) 22:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to replace it with something from someone of mainstream opinion like Len McCluskey and/or Dianne Abbott?? Ulgarg (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know anything particular about the American Herald Tribune, just know Galloway is certainly an internationally known figure. Not sure it's accurate to say Naz Shah has "accepted" that she is anti-Semitic from what I've seen, though I may not have read everything.SM-Mara (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The commentary needs trimming rather than adding to, but as a prominent member of Shah's party Diane Abbott would certainly be a better candidate for comments on Shah than someone as outspoken on the subject of anti-Semitism as George Galloway. Since Shah herself has apologised there's really no need to manufacture a debate about whether her comments were appropriate or not. I'd suggest a line from Shah's apology, Rentoul's comments and a line about Livingstone (relevant more because he got himself into trouble than because he had anything particularly interesting to add about Shah herself) is plenty of commentary. Dtellett (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Marriage

The article says she was married by arrangement. Is the marriage now dissolved? Has she remarried or is she single, or what? Wythy (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, her marital status might be of even more significance now (Aug. 2017), following reports of her advice to sexual grooming victims to keep quiet. Valetude (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

a Facebook meme in August 2014 supporting the relocation of Israel to the USA.

>a Facebook meme in August 2014 supporting the relocation of Israel to the USA.

"...a satirical dig at proposals to force the Palestinians to move into Jordan or Saudi Arabia – the point being that both Israel and the USA would object passionately to the proposal in the image, so why is it okay to inflict a similar situation on Palestinians, Jordanians and Saudis?"

The meme was not created to support the relocation of Israel to the USA. Professor Finkelstein did not reblog it that way.

https://beastrabban.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/naz-shah-the-anti-semitism-allegations-and-apartheid-israel/

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

Not mentioning that the post was satirical is deeply worrying and brings Wikipedia into disrepute.

131.111.184.102 (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand US presidential candidate Ben Carson probably wasnt satirical when he suggested relocating the Palestinian state into Egypt https://eu.rgj.com/story/opinion/readers/2015/03/31/carson-shows-ignorance-foreign-policy-letters/70721746/ in fact no eyebrows were raised when its the other way round 82.11.163.59 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

and in September appeared to compare Israeli policies to those of Adolf Hitler.

>and in September appeared to compare Israeli policies to those of Adolf Hitler.

Would it be a good idea to give the source of the words attached to that meme, Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail 1963-04-16?

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers." — Martin Luther King (Letter from Birmingham Jail 1963-04-16)

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Letter_Birmingham_Jail.pdf

131.111.184.102 (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean a bit more? I can't see "and in September appeared to compare Israeli policies to those of Adolf Hitler." anywhere in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's at the end of a sentence in the first half of the article, and the IP editor is quite correct that the meme Shah posted specifically cites Martin Luther King (with Shah's comment "#APARTHEID ISRAEL"). The comparison between Israel and Hitler is Shah's though, not Luther King's, and the picture doesn't use the extended text of the speech about aiding and comforting. I think we could probably find a more neutral source on the issue than the Jewish Chronicle, but can't see anything wrong with the actual wording as is. Same with the satirical meme about relocating Israel meme: if she'd used it in the context the original author used it and defended herself on the basis that "it was satire, and these are the relocation policies I'm criticising" then it would be important to include details of its origin and the surrounding debate in the article. Since she tweeted it with "problem solved" and a joke about saving Obama and Cameron some pocket money and subsequently disowned the comments altogether I think adding any more detail about what was said and analysis about why it might have been said would (i) end up looking even more unfavourable to Shah if drafted in a NPOV manner and (ii) be undue weight. Dtellett (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Expressions_of_doubt apparent / appeared

"and in September appeared to compare Israeli policies to those of Adolf Hitler."

Though it is in the reprinted Jewish Chronicle caption it is a very embarrassing misrepresentation and brings Wikipedia into disrepute, "appeared" to some but obviously she did not. Nor did her source Martin Luther King.

"...never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was legal..."

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein/american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

"Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said this in response to questions about civil rights and the law. The point was that morality and the law are not always on the same side. A state can legislate immorally."

131.111.184.102 (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Double standards?

Hi, I see that Ms Shah's recents comments which've received mainstream media coverage is rightly being covered on her page. I've tried to include a similar controversy and views section on Yisrael Katz's page but it keeps getting removed by users claiming it's an undue/unbalanced/false representation due to percentage of information compared to rest of page. I don't see this claim being made here where around 80% of page is about her recent comments.

Because at the end of the day, surely if information is notable enough to be covered by media then it's useful and important for Wikipedia readers to find a version of it which considers all viewpoints rather than from particular angle elsewhere. But I can't understand why same standard isn't being used on both pages.

I must strongly stress I've no intention to encourage any kind of pro/anti left-wing/right-wing, Labour/Conservatives, Israeli/Palestinian etc comments. Just neutral, unbiased, partial opinion about balance that applies here to also apply there. Any takers? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Raise your concerns about that article on its talkpage, not this one. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's been done and got no where with that. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Tough shit then. Maybe go for an WP:RFC (on that article). Good luck. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. If you do open an rfc, then feel free to link to it here, but this is not the place to discuss another article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Owen Jones retweet issue

The big source for the story seems to be a Sun article. Wikipedia doesn't seem to let the Sun be used as a source, so instead people seem to have used a story in a local paper that seems to selectively quote the rebuttal from Shah's office. Also used as a citation was a Yahoo story based on the Sun story which includes a link to the Sun story.

The problem with this is the local paper omits the Shah spokesman making the point that the retweet was corrected after only a few minutes and tries to make it sound like Shah only retracted under pressure 'later' on (later implies hours/days, not minutes). The spokesman is unlikely to lie about something that can easily be proved by anyone paying attention to her twitter account.

Fortunately the yahoo story does include the full line:

"This was a genuine accident eight days ago that was rectified within minutes. To suggest otherwise is absolute nonsense."

So I've cited that as a source to correct it. I later noticed the line is also quoted in the Telegraph & Argus article about the petition that was cited later on, so added that as second source for the quote.

It's an unusual situation where a source that's hostile to Naz Shah actually contains the bit of information key to assessing the facts in her defense. 77.103.105.67 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Urdu name is a slur

The "name" in Urdu does not read "Naseem Shah," but instead translates to "dirty dog." The correct transcription can clearly be found on the Urdu page for Naz Shah. 209.160.219.10 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed. --ChiveFungi (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Her correct name in Urdu has been added (Urdu: نسیم شاہ)

Wikipedia is prone to this sort of nasty lurking incitement to hatred, good that you noticed it!

131.111.184.102 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust survivor working with Naz Shah

Would something the Jewish Chronicle thought significant, the words of a Holocaust survivor prominent in Bradford, be useful in showing balance? (I realise Holocaust deniers will object)

Naz Shah has always worked closely with the Jewish community in Bradford, “She came to the synagogue and it was her first function after being elected. We have become close friends and she has become a friend of the Jews. We are very close.” — Rudi Leavor (Chair of Bradford Reform Synagogue in Naz Shah’s Bradford constituency)

Rudi Liebowitz (later Rudi Leavor) was born in Berlin in 1926 but moved to Bradford on 10 November 1937.

131.111.184.102 (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

attack BLP

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure No result. The RfC is terminated per WP:ACD through a procedural close because it is particularly badly formed, being presented in both a non-neutral and quite vague manner. (For more, see WP:WRFC.) The nomination is more an expression of frustration than anything else. It is telling that what the nominator proposes was clarified after the comment posted by Icewhiz, who the nominator says has "misunderstood" their suggestion. Well, no wonder!.. There might be a legitimate RfC waiting to be made here. Interested editors are advised to start the process again, this time per WP:RFC, if so inclined. The Gnome (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

The article was one of the worst attack WP:BLPs I have seen on Wikipedia: absolutely shameful. I have removed some cruft..it could still be trimmed more. What need to be expanded is the "Parliamentary and political record" part. Presently we have a lot about what other people says about her....little about what she says herself! This obviously should be changed....Huldra (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. Be more specific regarding the problems you see with BLP.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Shah is a public figure. Her antisemitism scandal is clearly lede worthy and received significant on-going coverage (arguably - this is the most covered aspect of this politician). Public figures are commented on - and we reflect said commentary.Icewhiz (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I think the previous version was fine and the antisemitism should be covered in the lede. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Nobody has demanded that the socalled antisemitism affair (when did retweeting something from Norman Finkelstein homepage become a "scandal"? Seriously???) isn't covered...it is, in great detail. What the discussion is about is whether a couple of soon deleted tweets should be covered. I think not. This is a storm in a tea cup, and you all know it. Huldra (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• Editors need to consider how undue the content is. We are not a tabloid. We need to be mindful of BLPs all the time, not just when the content attacks a BLP who is not particularly well-liked with some editors. Certainly, a mention of these “scandals” can be discussed, but overkilling it to make a point is not helpful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep removed as WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Maybe there's something worth restoring from that block of text, but I think each element needs to be reviewed, rather than restoring it all en masse. The onus will be with the editor(s) who want to do that to show why it is important to do so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Add back, BLP is not an excuse for blanking out self-admitted antisemitic language. Frankly, the subject has admitted it. From the BBC: "Naz Shah: My words were anti-Semitic".

References

• Leave sourced content alone instead of removing just because you don't like it.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Remove as per WP:BALASP of WP:UNDUE which states "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

The article has lent undue weight to certain incidents or controversies with excessive amount of intricate detail making it a coatrack of unbalanced content for over two years now, it's about time this was resolved. Tanbircdq (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Wishy washy centrist opinion I do think the article in its previous state was possibly a bit undue in how much it focused on her resignation. That said, it was a major scandal that attracted a lot of news coverage and is basically the only reason anybody knows who Naz Shah actually is. User:Huldra's arguments that they personally don't see why it should be scandalous doesn't change the fact that, that's indeed what it was in the media. Does there need to be tangentially linked stuff like a journalist's account of facing racist abuse in Bradford in the article? No. But that's no reason to remove all information other than briefly mentioning the suspension and including a quote from Finklestein defending her.Brustopher (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep most of it - Shah basically became known, and is mainly known, for this scandal (and this is much more significant, coverage-wise than unseating Galloway or subsequent events). Coverage in RSes seems to mainly mention this as background - years later. There might be some elements worth removing/editing - but on the whole - this is a significant portion of the coverage of her - years later.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

  You seem to have misunderstood. What I suggested removing was the "twitter controversies" section, not the retweeting of the Norman Finkelstein picture. Huldra (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resignation in the lede

Okay let's split this up. Should her resignation be covered in the lede? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - this is clearly a significant event in her political career.Icewhiz (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Which one should note that NEWORGs, such as the BBC, see fit to place in their title regarding unrelated news years later - Anti-Semitism row MP Naz Shah gets Labour role, BBC, 11 July 2018. Seems this is probably the single most noteworthy fact here.Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. However, and with regard to hate speech, I do not see why the section on her tweets was blanked out. She advised the Rotherham child rape victims to keep their mouths shut and on liberating countries via summary execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tyre, filled with petrol, around a victim's chest and arms, and setting it on fire.
• Comment Is this supposed to be a RfC? If so, one could at least specify resignation ...from what? Huldra (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yeah... duh It's one of the reasons why she was widely covered by the press in the first place.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes is significant, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes In my opinion, if a person resigns from an inherently notable position because of a controversy or a scandal, it should be included in the lead. Note: this comment was made by an American  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Should "Twitter controversies" section be removed

Huldra would like to remove the Twitter controversies section. I disagree with removing the content, but am happy for the content to be worked into the rest of the text and the section header removed. Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly trim and possibly rename section. The section describes two rather serious gaffes that generated quite a bit of coverage for Shah. In the first, she said that Rotherham victims should "shut their mouths". A quick BEFORE shows quite a bit of coverage for this - [2] - beyond the coverage Shah typically receives. In the second, and more recent gaffe, she endorsed the practice of "Necklacing" (execution of snitches by igniting a rubber tire around their neck - see coverage in the South African). This too has received coverage - [3] - though less than the Rotherham gaffe - and it is probably sufficient coverage to cover in one to two lines.Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Keep as significant and covered by rs, thans Atlantic306 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Remove wrongly made tweets which were removed after a short time: guys, I know you dislike her, but you are scraping the bottom of the barrel here. This is a storm in a tea cup, Huldra (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely Keep - notable acts, notable speech by the subject, all well documented by multiple WP:RS. XavierItzm (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Remove Reporting the first on child sexual abuse is problematic - it originated from someone else; it was intended as humorous; the retweet was described as an accident; it was quickly removed. For all these reasons, its significance in understanding the subject's views is not great. If NS has significant views on the sexual abuse saga, they should be reported from her speeches and writings. The second, referencing tactics in the long over South African struggle for equality is hardly central to her current politics. I feel that this is using any excuse to throw mud simply because she is pro Palestinian.

Arbitration Enforcement page-level sanction

As an uninvolved administrator I am applying the following discretionary sanction to this article under WP:NEWBLPBAN: Naz Shah is placed under 1RR indefinitely and content challenged on BLP grounds can only be restored by explicit talk page consensus. This has been logged at WP:AELOG/2018 and added the neccesary edit notice to this page [4]. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Refactor to add a "Controversies" section?

From what I gather looking at old revisions, this page used to have multiple subsections under "Political career" that included numerous controversies. I see why this was removed however at the moment the "Parliamentary career" section feels bloated and disorganised, refactoring to include a single "Controversies" subsection would likely improve readability.

Forgive me for any mistakes since I'm new to this, but i'm also happy to do the edit myself if people approve. EvanM2015 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC) " "