Talk:Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi

Failed to declare rental income from London flat correctly

According to a BBC article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18223324), it has emerged Warsi failed to declare the income for around 15 months, from January 2011 until May 2012. ConservativeParty sources have not revealed the full amount she earned, but they say it is over the £5,000 annual limit before full disclosure is required. I feel mention should be included in the main article. 212.139.97.155 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.97.155 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Which mosque does Baroness Warsi attend?

I have seen this lady described and describing herself as a 'Muslim', yet do not see any evidence of her being one. Could we add a section on the religious requirements (if any) of a 'Muslim woman' to this article. Baroness Warsi repeatedly speaks on behalf of what she refers to as 'British Muslims' and 'British Asians' (ugh, hate the discrimination in both of those terms), yet appears to be absolutely unelected or mandated to do so. A Muslim woman has obligations to follow the laws and regulations pertaining to prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage, doing good deeds, etc., albeit with minor differences having mainly to do with female physiology - where does she pray? Is there a separate area in the Commons or Lords for male and female prayers? If so, has she ever used it? Does Baroness Uddin go there too? 79.70.236.165 (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)tamiflew00:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Her 'respect for all religions/defence of Christian practices'?

Does anyone have a link to her 'lines in the sand' on respecting the rights of 'religious groups' to have an input to Government policy in the UK? She said this included a right for everyone to carry out their religious practices, yet she says she abhors female circumcision. But supports Jewish male circumcision. Her rules of thumb therefore appear to be ad hoc (apart from denying atheists any protection from discrimination of course), and she appears to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes a religious practice. Does she , for example , support the right to self flagellate on Muharram (see <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjYcuphQvxM&feature=related>), or even the right to physically crucify yourself in the street, as practiced by Christian Filippinos at Easter (see: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvHbKn0xvtY&feature=related>)? Does she feel Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper) should be released from life imprisonment - he is clearly being judged as 'schizophrenic' because he admitted to hearing voices from God when working as a gravedigger, which told him to carry out Biblical commands to kill prostitutes - implying by her criteria, that he was merely expressing the tenets of his religion. Where does she stand on slaughtering animals in the street, as practiced in Palestine and some parts of Israel? Seems there is no written government policy, which is worrying, as it leaves everything to the personal pecadillos of one person - i.e. her - which 'isn't cricket' as we say in the UK (though may be in Pakistan , judging by current level of corruption in the game over there). Its silly not to challenge her on this as it affects everyone in the UK who is happy to worship in a place of worship, whatever their religion.80.42.224.179 (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)icur2ys4me02:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't really like Jews, do you? There is no such thing as 'female circumcision', only MUTILATION, and it has zero similarity with Jewish circumcision. And there is no 'Palestine'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.219 (talk) 08:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Warsi certainly has a problem with homosexuality - there is a need for a new section on the omission of school curriculum content from the Equality Act <http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/18/anti-gay-book-gove-row>. The education secretary is at the centre of an escalating row over how faith schools discuss homosexuality in sex education classes. The TUC has accused Gove of failing in his legal duties by insisting that equality laws, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, do not extend to the school curriculum. A booklet containing "homophobic material" had been distributed by a US preacher after talks to pupils at Roman Catholic schools across Warsi's constituency region in 2010. The booklet, "Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be", discusses a boy dealing with "homosexual attractions" which it suggested may "stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse". The booklet, which claims that "scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke", explains that "the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God's natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding." Warsi defends this. Seems that even when Warsi uses her mandate from God , the Conservatives in the Lords still cock everything up! 80.42.270.219 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 80.42.230.249 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)C. Hitchens 80.42.230.249 (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Stole another woman's husband and left her penniless

What is the name of this lady? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.212.80 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy and paste from website

The Early Years section of this page is a straight copy-and-paste from http://www.sayeedawarsi.com/biography/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.237.93 (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani origin?

She is indeed of pakistani origin but is she of solely pakistani extraction? She seemed to imply last night on question time that she was mixed race of part english heritage. Is this worth mentioning? I'll try to find a source 84.71.156.73 09:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If she's said something about her origin that we can cite, that could go in the biography section, sure. --Delirium (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion

Somebody is changing her religion to "munafic" i.e. munafiq, which means a "hypocrite" in Arabic and a terrible thing to call a Muslim.

I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.199.195 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading career details?

You say she trained with the CPS and Immigration Services - which gives the impression of a career track position with these agencies, compatible with someone seeking ministerial responsibility. Can anyone confirm these appointments at all? No dates appear to have been given anywhere on the internet, nor details. 79.75.212.80 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)honesty79.75.212.80 (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) They were student attachments as part of a course, rather hyperinflated CV on her own website does not point this out either.79.75.212.80 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)muslim woman79.75.212.80 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If they were just student placements then this should be made clear RoyalBlueStuey (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Joint Chair

I have seen reports that she is the joint chair, what is the correct position? Off2riorob (talk) 11:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Co-chair with Feldman? http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/9063/warsi_&_feldman_become_co_chairmen_of_the_conservative_party.html Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Seems to be 'Co-Chairman' according to <http://www.conservatives.com/People/Peers/Warsi_Sayeeda.aspx> - which is a Conservative Party website biography written by her own people. 'Proudest Political Achievements' section makes her seem more of a lightweight than even her performance at the Conference today did, where she was unable to resist making a snide comment about working with her soon-to-be replacement as Party Chairman, Andrew Feldman, who has more management experience and far less strenuous family commitments, yet seems to have made significantly more input towards achieving the brief. 212.139.97.86 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.97.86 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Can we understand and add one of these other pics from other wikis? This one looks like a possible..File:Contact_Sayeeda.jpg or this one :Saeeda1.jpg or this one Sayeda_warsi.jpg Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Excessive coverage of personal not notable details

Content is being added that her second husband s ex wife did not know she was divorced, It seems to be cited to the femail article, it simply is excessive titillating coverage of a personal issue and nothing to do with her notability at all. Her new husbands wife wasn't sure if she was still married, excessive and not worthy of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the content... Shortly after a dispute erupted, when Mussarat Bi, 34, Azam's first wife and mother of four, claimed she had been divorced without knowledge. Barnoness Warsi's side have dismissed the allegations in a statement made by Azam. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1213111/Did-wife-know-divorced-husband-wed-Tory-Muslim.html

The ex wife of the person the subject married did not realize she was divorced, completely not notable tabloid twaddle and should clearly be removed as excessive not notable excessive personal tabloid titillating twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and you are free to have one. And bear in mind the same reasoning could be applied to most articles of notable people according to what we as individuals deem "tabloid titillating twaddle". Obviously I don't agree. This event, along with daughter's name and her marriage to her cousin is notable and has been covered in various media other than Daily Mail and she has even commented on it. More references can be supplied, if desired. So it is notable, balanced and reliably referenced and it serves little to keep removing this information. I also rephrased it from the original wording as it was not npov so it should stay. Just a part of her personal background. Fragma08 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with her, its to do with other people and is rubbish please do not re add it. Fell free to take it to the WP:BLPN to see what consensus there is , imo it is excessive personal detail and nothing to do with her notability, please don't replace it without consensus support.Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But it does have something to do with her (see above ref). And the first wife apart, I really don't see why the name of her daughter and the mention of her cousin is removed. The details comply with WP:RS, neutrality, notability and the latter plays a role considering her political views on integration and arranged marriages. I don't see the problem with these details. Kindly don't remove again. Fragma08 (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fragma - home and personal life formed part of the manifesto on which the party was elected. It is therefore relevant to know about divorces, as the actual burden of domestic duties facing someone holding a Ministerial Office, albeit as a part-timer. 212.139.97.86 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)twl212.139.97.86 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Content about this divorce feud has crept back in. I've removed it for now, as I think it is under-sourced (one citation to the Daily Mail) for such a controversial BLP issue and leaves it unclear how this dispute finished (if it did), as well as including irrelevant comments about the ex-wife's family which don't reflect on Baroness Warsi at all. ωεαşεζǫįδ 12:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely, ωεαşεζǫįδ, and surely this particular content and citation violate WP:BLPSOURCES guidelines on tabloid-only material, which state: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." (emphasis added). Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Views on homosexuality

I have removed the reference to Baronness Warsi's views on homosexuality from the Life peerage section since it does not belong there. The subject is taken up more competently in the following section. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

'Working class parents?' in Biography

This reads a bit like a political candidate biography. Is the 'working class parents' bit an attempt to curry favour? It would be rather odd, wouldn't it, if the daughter of Pakistani immigrants were 'to the manor born,' the offspring of landed gentry?--86.31.105.33 (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Don't agree - some migrants from Pakistan arrived here with a huge amount of personal wealth at their disposal 79.70.237.159 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)twl79.70.237.159 (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

2005 election result

The author of parts of this page clearly does not understand what a swing is. It's the average of the fall in one party's vote and the rise in another's, so for example if the Labour vote falls 1% and the Tory vote rises 3% it's a 2% Labour to Tory swing.

The author says there was a swing to Labour against the Conservatives in Dewsbury when in fact there was a 4.2% swing from Labour to the Conservatives - well above the national average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.120.250 (talk) 10:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Leftist blog as a source?

Really? Step to the Left, a blog'' is counted as a source. Very poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.193.123 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that ref fails WP:RS. I have replaced it with two stronger refs. Widefox (talk) 13:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for citations

I removed a couple of {{fact}}s from this page. Someone had requested a citation for the statement that she has never been elected. I'm not sure if there's any source that specifically states that, but it's obviously true. Someone had also requested a citation for her religion. That one's a bit odd - she's been widely referred to as a Muslim, and has identified herself as such, e.g. in [1], which is the very first reference given in the article. Robofish (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Lost Party Chair, offered the Foreign Office

Whether this is indeed the monumental blow for 'ordinary, working class mums in the north', is moot, but the reshuffle should include in main article, perhaps after the actual move has been effected? Here's one: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/04/lady-warsi-kenneth-clarke-reshuffle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.29 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC) See you've already done it - cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.109.29 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Biased

"Her argument to stay was based on her sex and ethnic minority origins saying "I’m a woman, I’m not white". In the same interview she said that she was angry to be viewed "as a tokenistic appointment".[11]"

This section, as true as it may be, is written in a very biased manner. It ought to be changed. Can anyone word it in a more encyclopaedic way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.4.145 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the article and it appears to be biased in almost every paragraph, downplaying anything of note by its subject and raising all criticisms. I have just made the following edits, which I hope will not be vandalised; 1. in the opening paragraph, I have removed the unnecessary reference to a TV documentary on her father's firm which has no direct connection with the subject at all, and left the paragraph reading

"Her father, Safdar Hussain,[1], after starting life as a mill worker, operates a bed manufacturing company, which has a turnover of £2 million a year. Warsi has said that her father's success led her to adopting Conservative principles.[2]"

This is logically actually about Warsi. Some titilating nonsense about a documentary on her father's firm is not.

2. In the paragraph on her trip to the Sudan, as written there was huge bias in downplaying the press coverage of Warsi's contribution to the release of Gibbons. Indeed the Guardian article cited as a source is entitled "Tory Peer's Triumph Delights Cameron". Using that Guardian article I have changed "may have been an indirect and helpful contribution" to "was" and have added the following notable press coverage items; 1. that the hostage's son is quoted as thanking Warsi for her "hard work behind the scenes" 2. that Warsi was highly praised, by name, by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown and that 3. press coverage (including the cited article) referred to her "triumph".

It is not good enough to downplay this widely reported success for Warsi, acknowledged by the hostage's own son, by the PM of the day and by the press, because the authors of this article simply do not like her. It is inaccurate and strays from NPOV. Everything I have edited is supported by the same press citation already used. It should remain as a more accurate record. My edit reads:

"Although the peers' meeting with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir did not lead directly to Gillian Gibbons being pardoned, it is acknowledged that, along with the enormous efforts made by her family, friends, and others, it was a helpful contribution to her release. Gibbons' son thanked Warsi and Ahmed for "their hard work behind the scenes" and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, praised both peers, saying "I applaud the particular efforts of Lord Ahmed and Baroness Warsi in securing her freedom." The left-leaning Guardian newspaper referred to the incident as "Tory Peer's Triumph".[7][8]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.11.146 (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above, but sadly I tend to find this in many right-leaning articles on Wikipedia. They seem to have been written or tweaked by lefties who deliberately try to fill articles with the most negative stories they can find (often from The Guardian) about the MP/person/object in question. The "class" section is a fine example of this. Thanks for your input. Christian1985 (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

"Class" section

I have removed the so-called "class" section, I felt it was a most biased attempt to smear Baroness Warsi. It opens with a statement from Warsi herself describing herself as a Northern working-class mum which is completely true. But the author has gone onto a blatant attempt to try and contradict this statement with such opinionated POV statements such "she claims this because her father was a mill worker but now a multi-millionaire", "she is a qualified lawyer and member of the Cartlon Club". This is just a blatant attempt at a smear from my point of view and I feel it is completely inappropriate so I have removed it. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Christian1985, I respectfully disagree with you. The section (which I am not responsible for) seems very relevant to me, given that Warsi herself talks quite often about class and tries to present issues of her own background in a particular way. The section was adequately referenced too. Maybe other editors will disagree with both of us and deal with this matter differently. Let's see. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I disagree completely. Just because it is sourced doesn't mean it is right. It has been deliberately written to try and make certain implications from my point of view. Warsi is working class that is a fact and the writer has tried to say "no she is isn't here is the "proof"". I have reverted the edit as I feel it is inappropriate but I will refer this for a 3rd opinion. Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Christian1985, thank you for your comments. We clearly perceive this issue differently. I notice that you caveat your explanation with the phrase "from my point of view". You then attribute to an unknown editor motives that may or may not have existed. I am not that editor, by the way. I merely consider it reasonable to include the section for the reasons I have already given. Thanks again. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Christian19985. The passage is a transparent attempt to contradict her statement. It seems she and her father rose from the working class, but that fact does not contradict what she said. -Rrius (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Rrius, if another editor also agrees, I won't persist. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rrius for your third opinion, this is exactly what I have said. It is a blatant POV section which has been written as a smear attempt. GorgeCuster, the problem is your are adding your POV into this as well by saying "she talks about class a lot" that is an opinion not a fact. I have removed the section again, please do not repost, a 3rd opinion agrees that it is not appropriate for the article, please leave it out. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 12:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Christian1985, we disagree on this. We both accuse the other of POV. This happens on Wikipedia and is not personal. I have the right to edit. So do you. I do not want an edit war. I merely feel quite strongly about this section. And as I have made clear, I am not even the author of the section. I am happy to let it go if another editor considers the section unhelpful. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I too do not wish to make this into an edit war, I am happy that things are remaining civil but I feel very strongly against this section being in the article. It is biased and it is POV/OR which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. As I have said above an independent editor agrees with my reasoning and on that basis the section should be left out. I am aware you are not the author of the section. I will refer this for an RfC Thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

What's in or not in the article is beside the point. Whether the individual facts are included is irrelevant. What is wrong with the language we are talking about is that it at least seems to have been drafted with the intent of making Warsi look like she is lying. There is a neutral way to present all of the relevant facts—even in proximity to one another. But the thing as it most recently existed just didn't do that. -Rrius (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Rrius, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard have rejected my request and advised me to re-refer to 3rd opinion. I am personally satisfied with the 3rd opinion from Rrius but I have listed it anyway for the benefit of GorgeCustersSabre. Thanks Christian1985 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I would have preferred an additional opinion, beyond Rrius, but, because of your intensity of passion, Christian1985, I will desist from editing this page. Indeed, I have decided to remove it from my watch list and to wish you success and happiness. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Before the damehood

The article sort of begs the question: had she been making any real impact on the national political scene before she was 'picked up' by the tory party leadership and made one of the key spokespersons of the party on muslim immigrants, ethnic/intercultural relations, urban integration etc? By 2005 she seems to have had little to her credit politically other than a failed bid for a parliament seat, but "Though she was unsuccessful in her 2005 election bid, she served as a special adviser to Michael Howard on community relations, and was appointed by David Cameron as vice chairman of the Conservative Party with specific responsibility for cities". Soon promoted to a shadow ministerial position, she became a life peer in order to be able to enter parliament (the House of Lords). This is a massive promotion of someone who seems to have been, at the time, a nonentity in parliamentary politics, national political debate or public presence. In most countries it would be read as her having been gifted her career ticket, entry at top level by the party bigwigs, likely because they wanted a woman with a minority background for this particular set of tasks (of course the tag of being a tokenist minister is something she has been battling ever since). Anyway, the article really could benefit from some more material on her pre-2005/06 career, her early years within the tory party, possible volunteer work or NGOing on ethnic/intercultural/faith/social cohesion issues, etc. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What damehood? She is not a DBE or DCB or DCMG or DCVO. Don't confuse a Baroness with a Dame. Quis separabit? 00:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

MOS:HONORIFIC

The appropriate title of this article should be "SAYEEDA BARONESS WARSI" or the honorific have to be removed totally. Come on! This a normal honorific like others. Even David Cameron's article does not contain any honorifics. -- AHLM13 talk 15:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCPEER might be helpful. If you aren't sure, rather than do move after move after move, ask at the talk page to the NCPEER page. Note in particular that there is an exception mentioned there that if a person is almost exclusively known by their personal name, or well known by their personal name and received the honor after they retired that the article should should be their personal name only. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Muslim Women Power List

@Justice007: I did some checking before identifying the EHRC; take a look at this page of theirs, and even more so this, in which the EHRC talk of "our panel". The list wasn't published by the "Muslim Women Power List". It's awkward to use honoured" here, which isn't usually used of ranking lists. I'll try a phrasing that avoids that without repeating "named as".
Meanwhile, I notice this sentence breaches WP:LEDE by being present in the lede without being in the body of the article. It is also somewhat incidental; the paragraphs above describe her power and influence, this sentence just describes a couple of different ways her influence was noted. I'll move it. NebY (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

NebY, no problem, but I do not think that the sources support that claim. The members of the panel were from various organisations, the Muslim Women Power List, asked them to participate in ranking or nomination. I understand that. Justice007 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Civil partnerships

Why is her view on civil partnerships in the Immigration section rather than the Gay Rights section? 86.132.220.192 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi. 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/20110611044054/http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/13th%20May2010%20List.doc to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/other/13th%20May2010%20List.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310014605/http://politics.standard.co.uk/2012/03/tories-give-warsi-both-barrels.html to http://politics.standard.co.uk/2012/03/tories-give-warsi-both-barrels.html

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) 05:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

How do you say Warsi?

In her recent appearance on Have I Got News For You it sounded to me as though she was Baroness Farsi. Anything to do with the welsh chairman? Geofpick (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Marr is pretty clear with Warsi here? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC) ... we can't trust Rhodri, of course, as he's from Carmarthen

I think the discussion of the allophony of [v] and [w] in Urdu in this article is relevant. I have heard her introduced as /w-/ and /v-/, and it seems that in a sense neither is incorrect. I cannot find a video on YouTube where she says her own name, so will not add IPA to the article until someone can find clear evidence of how she pronounces it. Beorhtwulf (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

LGBT-based Islamophobia in introduction

Currently the largest part of the introduction reads as an Islamophobic enforcement of the secularist point of view on LGBT issues being pushed onto Warsi, a Muslim woman, in violation of the NPOV. Firstly, this gives undue weight and disproportionate introduction space to a single issue which in the main body of the article is only given minor attention anyway and secondly the tone needs to be completely neutralised, instead of the foam-at-the-mouth, agree-with-us-or-else, pitch-fork approach currently being forwarded. Ishbiliyya (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hysterical nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.17.219 (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Ancestors

Is mentioning that Warsi's ancestors were from S. Punjab relevant at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.66.181 (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)