Talk:Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Criticism

[Formatting removed] In her writing, she often present herself as liberal voice of muslim. However, her muslim >>background is ismaili, considered to be a heretical sect by most muslim. This fact is rarely spelt out by her in most of her newspaper columns. Many muslim consider that she is >>exploiting British ignorance of muslim faith, and merely exploiting the title of muslim to present herself as some sort of bridge between islam and the west.

I have deleted this for several reasons.

1. If Alibhai-Brown presents herself as such a voice, there should be a citation to support the claim.

2. There should be a source for her background.

3. There should be a source for the claim that that background is not only considered heretical, but considered heretical by "most" Muslims. At the very least, if this is a common criticism of Alibhai-Brown, there should be a citation of someone making that criticism.

4. If "many muslims" think she is exploiting British ignorance, there should be a cited source for "many muslims" thinking such a thing. If it's a common criticism by some muslims, they should be cited. --Dannyno 09:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, If i quote, it actually going to sound worse. But hey, that is what you asked. FWBOarticle

You might want to create "Political Stance" section to explain more about her view. This would give better balance. FWBOarticle

I note you call "Ismali" "a minor heretic sect". How is this in line with the wikipedia article on Ismali, which says that it is the "second largest Shi'a community"? You may want to try and word it so it is less POV. --Dannyno 17:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Shi'a is minority within muslim. I guess, "British muslim" is more appropriate. FWBOarticle

To be honest, what she say even contradict even ismali line of theology. But that is a detail most Brits wouldn't notice or won't care. She probably don't annoy muslim if she declare that she is not a muslim but that just ruin the show, I guess. FWBOarticle 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense statistics only destroy your credibility: Ismailis "make up around .02% of the global Muslim population". At say 20m of 1500m (ballpark figures) that's one-ish per cent. There was no source given for the figure, though the number is irrelevant in an article about YA-B. By the way if they think she ain't a Muslim, how can they hold her treacherous?--SilasW (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Deportation"

She was also concerned over threats to deport her mother, and that accepting the award might have exacerbated the situation.

This is utter bollocks. She accepted the award (or so she claims) in part to reassure her mother that she herself wouldn't (as a "dissident" - hah!) be deported. From the Indy column:

Until this MBE, Jena, my mother, was constantly fearful that we would be deported from this country because I am so strident a dissenter. What happened in Uganda still affects Asians. Her panicky heart settled after she saw and touched the rather beautiful piece in its satin folds.

Removed. EdC 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's knowledge about is islam is very limited if not none, for me she is some one Who is a bit confused.

This is an unacceptably biased Wiki entry

It has clearly been put together by people hostile to Alibhai-Brown, and it has a tone of malice and a lack of balance that are clearly contrary to the wiki guidlines. How is quoting an anoymous commnenter - and what they "may" have said - legitimate?

This is an understandable reaction by the victims of her bigotry towards the english. If she was white she would be seen as a racist. Racism still seems a one-way street where the least racist (whites) are the only ones subject to the 'adult' rules of racism. This exemption for others leads to a natural feeling of contempt for those who don't have to play by the same rules, yet have not even begun the process of anti-racism within their cultures, leaving them further behind than they already were. Those of us who know Uganda well and know about the natives' hatred of the asian population (who own most of the businesses and treat the blacks so appallingly), find this woman's views repulsive and hipocritical.

That's beside the point - Wikipedia isn't supposed to be an outlet for anyone's 'natural feeling of contempt'. An unverified quote from an anonymous contributor is not a viable source for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.237.164 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Honour

Apparently she has rejected her honour and I suggest the MBE should be removed on the article. This was cited on todays the wright stuff 81.104.241.139 16:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

See this comment from her on honours: These shameless honours dishonour us all. It says that she was awarded the MBE but sent it back. The MBE ought to be removed, and a note on the awarding/returning added to the article. --Dannyno 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That has now been added to the article; I also removed her from the category, since presumably if you reject membership, you are not considered to be a member of the Order.--Gloriamarie 09:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... What has been written above proves this article has been edited by people whose POV is hostile. As for the article: Why is there a "criticism" section? Shouldn't there be a "Appraisal" section as well then? Wikipedia looks less and less like an Encyclopedia (if it ever was) and more like a deposit of hatred and prejudice. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.207.63 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

'Rejecting' or returning an award doesn't mean the awardee forfeits it, just that the insignia are returned. There is no legal process in the British Honours System for a person to reject an award, however it may be removed by order-in-council.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an unacceptable entry and needs to change

Indeed, one of the editors above candidly admits his bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.158.2 (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Racism

Ms. Brown has several times been accused of racist bias (i.e. anti-white) & hypocrisy in the UK media. I shall find references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.67.164.37 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do find the references make sure they include the racist bias that she shows towards people from her own supposed community too! Otherwise I'll have to do it...--Medisin (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example. Whites don't have right to own majority countries. And by implication White genocide is justified: "She added: 'There is a white panic every time one part of their world seems to be passing over to anyone else. But it's foolish to panic about it. So what if we do become a majority? What difference does it make?'

For Alibhai-Brown, the decline of whites is a question of redressing the balance after they colonised much of the world. 'The empire strikes back really. There was this extraordinary assumption that white people could go and destroy peoples and it would have no consequence. It astounds me,' she said." http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world --41.150.170.152 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

BBC interview poorly sourced; must be removed per BLP

This has been brought to the WP:BLP/noticeboard and removed because

• Audio tapes themselves, especially ones put on a group's site that could have been edited in some biased ways, are not acceptable as WP:RS. They only can back up transcripts, etc. on third party web sites. (Even one on Lib Alliance web site could be edited in a biased way.) Without that or even better some third party WP:RS description of the debate this is against BLP and could lead to a lawsuit.
• The comment on the Lib Alliance web site probably is not WP:RS because it is an advocacy group saying negative things about a person and only some advocacy groups manage to get to point of WP:RS to do that. But you can always bring it to WP:RS/noticeboard and see what they think.
• Also, assuming this retelling is accurate, as a libertarian I think it sounds like Gabb incited the woman to say something she would not have said so he could later make a racial complaint, which is tacky by itself and doesn't belong in wikipedia. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The recording is a bbc recording that has CLEARLY not been edited. This is a pathetic attempt at covering up an unsavoury side of Alibhai Browns character that clashes with the above editors ideals and so she deletes it. (head in sand comes to mind). The above person is obviously at odds with the Liberatarian Alliance, despite styling herself a liberatarian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Being a libertarian means you abide by the rules of voluntary groups you choose to join - and learn what they are if you don't know or can't understand them. If you don't like them yougo through proper processes to try to change them or you drop out of the voluntary group. So please try to refrain from personal attacks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Still on-going, I have tried to explain a number of times why the sources used are not acceptable and don't seem to be getting anywhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing book description

Removed this

• Hate Thy Neighbour (1998). London: Mindfield. ISBN 0-948491-52-3

because found it referred to a chapter or section Alibhai-Brown wrote, whose name is unclear. Also the book is described on Amazon as:

• Susan Greenberg, Editor, Hate Thy Neighbour: Dividing Lines of Race and Colour (Mindfield) (1998). London: Cambden Press. ISBN-13: 978-0948491528

And it's not clear if Mindfield is an original publisher, a description, or what. Giving me a head ache, if someone else wants to figure it out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Toms

I have removed the following from the criticism section, because it refers to a statement by her but does not contain any criticism. Find a (notable) source criticising her for saying it, and it can happily go back in.

In 2008, she referred to some Asians and Blacks who supported the British Conservative Party as "Uncle Toms".[12]

Saluton (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Heavy copyedit

I've subjected this article to a heavy copyedit to improve its flow, language and referencing of sources. In particular, I've removed several items from the 'Criticism' section. I've left the references to criticism by Wharton and Murray and added an example of criticism from the Spectator, but I've removed the three other examples. I'm not sure why the 'Martin Amis' section was here, since his open letter was critical of Terry Eagleton but not of Alibhai-Brown. The Muslim Council of Britain section was unsourced and in any case unremarkable: she may have had a spat with the organisation but has hardly received criticism notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Finally, the Andrew Green section: again I can't see how this is a notable enough incident for inclusion. --Nick Boalch\^talk 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Newshour reference

I removed this reference, which was attached to 'Alibhai-Brown has attracted criticism from other commentators, including allegations [...] of racism':

In a radio debate, Alibhai-Brown agreed that 'the indigenous majority in this country is so seething with hatred and discontent that it is only restrained by law from rising up and tearing all the ethnic minorities to pieces.' Debate on multiculturalism, Newshour, BBC World Service, 2004-02-16.

What we need a reference to here is some commentator saying 'Alibhai-Brown is racist' or similar. Examples that Wikipedia editors think are suggestive of racism don't fit the bill, since they're original research. --Nick Boalch\^talk 11:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Stoning" Tweet

It would probably be worth adding a reference regarding this - an archived screenshot of the tweet is at yfrog.com/28bf1hp for example. (This link is on Wikipedia's blacklist, however.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.190.134 (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to add this link and doing so might give reason to remove the "allegedly". However, given the addition of a reference, the wide reporting of this event and the legal proceedings against Mr Compton things can remain as they stand for the moment I think. Jamiethered (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the "allegedly" for libel reasons, but it is reported that Compton has accepted using those words; however, as with all biographies, we should tread carefully. Meanwhile, we have an acceptable secondary source to the original tweet from numerous news sources, so we don't need to worry about blacklisted sites. Rodhullandemu 01:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats

I don't believe Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has ever shown any support for the Lib Dems, although she might now claim that she did and that she feels "betrayed".

The link provided shows negativity towards Lib Dem policies and I don't think it's honest to say that this shows any support for the Lib Dems, beyond the headline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.94.89 (talk) 22:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

TotalPolitics, Iain Dale interview

TotalPolitics - Iain Dale - In conversation with ... Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, 5 May 2011.

One remarkable comment: My father didn’t speak to me from when I was a young teenager until the day he died because I played Juliet in a school production, and the [boy playing] Romeo was black.

    ←   ZScarpia   06:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

James Delingpole

User:JMP1966 keeps adding a link to the exchange between Alibhai-Brown and James Delingpole from Friday 20 June on Channel 4 News, plus an insulting quote from Delingpole. As this exchange has not led to comment from third-party/reliable sources, I believe it is entirely legitimate for me to remove this passage. Philip Cross (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yasmin Alibhai-Brown. 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/20141113195227/http://sileedsliteraryprize.wordpress.com/patrons/ to http://sileedsliteraryprize.wordpress.com/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) 11:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

The 'criticism' section appears to just be a collection of quotes from anyone who has said anything negative about Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, with no notability.

Is that appropriate or comparable to other biographical articles? I think not.

I think the whole section should be removed.

Use of primary sources in criticism section

GorgeCustersSabre has now reinstated two paragraphs in the criticism section after removal by two editors (including myself). The two items are different in nature so lets look at them:

1. The first is only supported by a link to YouTube, there is no third party source saying that this is a criticism of her. To use a primary source as criticism is original research and selective in nature and unless picked up by other sources fails any reasonable test of notability. Even if there was a third party source it is highly dubious that a set of joking comments would constutute criticism. Unless some additional sourcing is provided this paragraph really has to go.
2. The second paragraph is sourced to a known polemiscist, disowned by the Conservative Party who asserts that Islamophobia is a nonsense term. He is part of the far right support group for Tommy Robinson. This is not a criticism in our normal sense of the word it is a polemical attack. Again the reference is to a primary source with significance only attributable to the editor who chose to include it. There is no qualification, no third party source. We are not here to propogate any view in any book, but we have a duty to test for relevance

As neither insert has a third party source I propose to delete them unless some strong argument or additional sourcing is provided. Please also note that we may have BLP issues here -----Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Snowded and friends, I accept the explanation provided here and won't re-insert. I'm persuaded. Best wishes to both editors, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, its appreciated -----Snowded ^TALK 13:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

My thanks also. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Pot calling the Kettle Black

This woman is remarkable in her hypocrisy towards anyone who is not the same race as she is. Whether they are black or white. I can find references. Can I put this in the article with said references? GeorgieJanet (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)