Talk:Yasmine Mohammed

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

Article creation by removing redirection[edit]

Previously this article had been redirected to World Hijab Day#Criticism of the event by User:Werldwayd.

Proposing to shift redirection link to see also section and accepting content from stub Draft:Yasmine Mohammed

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 10:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources and undue weight[edit]

A significant amount of the content in the article is cited to interviews with the subject, rather than coverage in independent secondary sources. The sections about Mohammed's activist work also appears to include a fair amount of WP:COATRACK content about issues that Mohammed has commented on that isn't due for inclusion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said {prim sources issues = maybe, {Undue weight = no, I do not concur. - IMHO. CatCafe (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day appear undue to me. I could be convinced otherwise by evidence in the form of secondary coverage in RS that is primarily about Yasmine Mohammed and makes significant mention of these subjects.While it's probably due to make some mention of her views on the hijab, the level of depth and laudatory tone in this section is also undue. signed, Rosguill talk 22:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK so the things that appear undue to you is not the issue, and what you are referring to is that you would like more prim sources. I'm sure the creator will address this when he/she can so prim sources tag is all that's needed. Thank you for raising here, in the meantime I will remove your undue tag. CatCafe (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no, while these concerns are related I do think that they are distinct and the undue tag should remain on the article until it is addressed. signed, Rosguill talk 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alhill42, an editor feels that introducing more secondary sources to the article would address the 'undue' and 'prim sources' concerns she has - particularly in the "subsections about M103, Rahaf Mohammed and International Women's Day". Perhaps some more secondary sources can be added and then the tag on the page can be removed. Thanks. CatCafe (talk) 23:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs fewer primary sources, not more. It needs more secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK corrected, I have addressed your concerns and you have said your concerned relate to the primary sources - so that's the only tag you require now that we have clarified your opinion. CatCafe (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CatCafe, I put that tag there for a reason, and while you're welcome to disagree with my perspective I don't appreciate you trying to tell me that my concerns have been addressed when they have not. There are two separate issues with the article. The first is that the article relies too much on primary sources in general. The second is that a lot of the content is not due for inclusion; whether or not content is due is dependent on the weight placed by reliable secondary sources. signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill You have your opinion and it's not supported. But we can discuss it here and in the meantime your tag needs to be removed. You're in conflict with WP:BITE, I ask you to back off the new editor. CatCafe (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation is absurd. signed, Rosguill talk 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And all in 'your opinion' Rosguill, so go easy on the newbie OK. Let's sort it out here, tags are disheartening and as a sort of seen as vandalism to some newbies. CatCafe (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
nu, if Alhill42 has an issue they can raise it themselves. Get off your high horse. signed, Rosguill talk 23:39, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why thanks for the two personal insults Rosguill, I asked you to act as per the spirit of WP:BITE, but you refuse and now get insulty. Pot, kettle, black? You say you edit based on 'practices you've adopted', not necessarily based on policy - that's concerning. CatCafe (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I will say it again Rosguill, leaving just the one 'prim sources' tag addresses both your concerns as you've articulated, so your message has been received. That's why I removed the fortuitous 'undue weight' tag you added, I think I have the right to after I considered your concerns - i.e. addressed them. CatCafe (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the main concerns that I had about undue weight. The article still leans a bit too much on primary sources, but in its current state these sources are mostly used to establish biographical details from before Mohammed became a public figure, so I'm not as concerned about due weight issues there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rp2006, I think you misinterpreted my comment when you made this edit [1]. I meant to say that I consider the undue weight issues to be resolved; the primary source issues have not. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Yes I did. RobP (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not Canadian[edit]

Rosguill why remove reference to her citizenship in description? The sources say she's Canadian. CatCafe (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to make it shorter, as it was way too long earlier. I generally don't include nationality in short descriptions unless it's directly related to their field of work (e.g. politician, athlete at the international level), but I wouldn't oppose inclusion if you think it should be added. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Can you quote the policy that suggests one's description should not contain citizenship? CatCafe (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not policy, it's a practice I've adopted when doing new page reviews. Because nationality can often be a contentious category, I stick to only mentioning it when it's clearly relevant. But as I said, I don't have an issue with it being added here. signed, Rosguill talk 23:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you say "it's a practice I've adopted", not based on policy - thanks for clarification. Well her citizenship is not a contentious issue with this person, so your argument to removing it is rubbish. CatCafe (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...I'm literally not arguing to remove it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No - you literally did remove her citizenship from 'Short description' in the article twice, up against 2 editors - that's editwarring. And then argued why you were in the right doing so based on your 'practice you've adopted' - please. CatCafe (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Sun op-ed[edit]

I've once again removed information cited to this op-ed, as it's not reliable for this context for two reasons. The first is that as an opinion column, it's not a reliable source for anything other than attributed statements of opinion (see WP:RSEDITORIAL). The second issue is that the author has a clear conflict of interest, as they literally introduce Mohammed as The next speaker was my friend, Yasmine Mohammed. More generally, in response to some of the recent edit summaries, simply throwing citations from newspapers into the article regardless of content is not an improvement. I removed these sources because they do not provide any secondary information about Mohammed that isn't already established by other sources; the sources in question largely mention Mohammed to quote her on a separate topic, they do not provide any secondary coverage of her. signed, Rosguill talk 14:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you neglected to read the rest of the rule you quoted: '(op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author' and 'The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint'. Tarek Fatah is certainly authoritive in his field according to his wiki page. So I will fix it for you and word it the way you demand, that being: "In the opinion of Tarek Fatah, Mohammed spoke in the Canadian Parliament in opposition to Motion 103, a non-binding motion to condemn Islamophobia in Canada." If you think that makes improving the encyclopaedia, over the previous way the sentence read, then good for you. I would prefer to you fix issues and retain the sources you are demanding, rather than delete them. CatCafe (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Using it in the article to support the claim that Mohammed spoke is using it as a statement of fact; it does not confer weight in this context. If, on the other hand, we had an opinion piece saying something like Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in global discourse, then that would be a situation where an attributed opinion would be useful.
At any rate, the point is moot because of the glaring conflict of interest. signed, Rosguill talk 21:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to request you stop being disruptive when others are endeavouring to add further sources in order to have the tag removed. Whatever you do, you need to retain the source as we have been directed. CatCafe (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CatCafe, adding sources irrespective of their quality is not an improvement. At this point, if you want to contest this further, I would suggest that we take this to WP:DRN because I don't think the two of us discussing directly will accomplish much. Alternatively, if other editors watching this page want to pitch in, that could also help. signed, Rosguill talk 22:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry the source must be retained as per your direction. I'm trying to help you here Rosguill. Would you be happier with the sentence you suggested before "Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in global discourse" attributed to the Sun? I once again ask you to stop being disruptive in this process, and amend the sentence you have a problem with, rather than delete the source.CatCafe (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be daft. signed, Rosguill talk 22:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call other editor's names, I am not daft, I am trying to improve the encyclopaedia. CatCafe (talk)

Draft:Rights of women in Islam[edit]

I see some curators are taking lot of effort on keeping Yasmine Mohammed Wikipedia article at bay, I mean, neat and clean. Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in Canadian discourse.:r-Toronto Sun is important Global or local Canadian voice or not time will confirm in more than one ways if not sooner then soon enough and through reliable sources too.

Yasmine Mohammed is an important Canadian voice in Rights of women in Islam discourse.:r-Toronto Sun will probably will be a better sentence.

Donald Trump calls every other Global politician his friend that is his colloquial style that does not mean Donald Trump has conflict of interest with every one he called to be friend or foe. Likewise some author may say Yasmine Mohammed is good friend does it prove any conflict of interest? To any rational mind it won't. But to some esteemed Wikipedia curators who intend to soft-censor Wikipedia article from behind stones walls of various rules to bring end to the encyclopedic inclusions words do not realize such efforts are temporary and eventually what is prevailable will prevail. Yasmine Mohammed and her voice are great or not time will tell but meanwhile I herewith initiate Draft:Rights of women in Islam which I am sure will not only prevail on Wikipedia but improve. If not voice of Yasmine Mohammed her cause of Rights of women in Islam is likely to prevail on Wikipedia in times to come. If any one wanna censor or soft-censor it then please start by censoring this red link itself. Let them inaugurate article by censorship on Rights of women in Islam, if they so wish.

Best wishes to best of censors on Wikipedia. And request with genuine compliments to contribute and expand to those who wish to expand Draft:Rights of women in Islam .

Bookku (talk) 08:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, could you cite the sentence in that article that supports the claim, Yasmine Mohammed is an important voice in Canadian discourse? As for the friend comment, I see it as a clear declaration that the author has an external relationship with the subject, which makes them a non-independent source. A professional journalist should know both to disclose conflicts of interest when they have them, and to not use colloquial styles that suggest otherwise when they don't. signed, Rosguill talk 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Let us shift the gear for a while, I am sure you can prove better of your neutrality than that of Tarek Fatah, So I request you to inaugurate Draft:Rights of women in Islam, that will be good opportunity to prove your encyclopedic neutrality. I wish hope and request you don't waste it.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Women in Islam exists, right? signed, Rosguill talk 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, is Women in Islam 100% = Draft:Rights of women in Islam. And are you sure these excuses will be considered neutral? I am not using but reminding with due respect that some one used four letter word to another fellow Wikipedian on this talk page itself, (At least Tarek Fatah did not do that in the article being discussed at least) .

Thanks Bookku (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, seems like a WP:CFORK to me, especially since we don't have Rights of women in Christianity, Rights of women in Hinduism, etc. At any rate, if you're looking for help, WP:WikiProject Women or WP:WikiProject Islam would be a more appropriate place to ask. signed, Rosguill talk 18:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rosguill for all your Wikisplaining, as such I had requested to inaugurate Draft:Rights of women in Islam with soft-censorship and you did it successfully in earlier but just I was confirming that is what you want to do and you did in such a fantastic way I am speechless. Thanks for your inauguration of Draft:Rights of women in Islam by soft-censorship as requested. And I will keep inviting to the discussions on various other discussion pages to mount more and more reasons of censoring further and further. You are really good at it and Wikipedia needs to find such more opportunities for you. We will be meeting at various other projects to discuss how to find more reasons to censor Draft:Rights of women in Islam don't forget Bookku (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill and Bookku, is Draft:Rights of women in Islam a name of a book or something, or is it about the concept of women's rights in Islam? If its the latter, then I agree that it should redirect to Women in Islam.VR talk 03:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy reading[edit]

@Rosguill: Please read following again and again billion times.

The reference: https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Ex-Muslim-to-Post-Trying-to-teach-naive-West-about-true-nature-of-Islam-598946

Paragraph No3 The educator and author has become a prominent voice within the growing global ex-Muslim community, speaking extensively to audiences worldwide.

@Rosguill: Please read above again and again billion times.

Happy reading, Bookku (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, I actually, genuinely missed that. My apologies. signed, Rosguill talk 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The {cn} tag can therefore be removed. CatCafe (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent & Bookku, In conclusion to the discussion above, I still believe the [citation needed] tag next to the sentence "Ms. Yasmine has become a public speaker and significant voice" can now be removed. I am not in a position to remove it. Thank you. CatCafe (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.VR talk 04:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles[edit]

Hi,

Request for comment discussion has been initiated @ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles and has reference to this article there in.

Those interested can express their views there in.

Thanks, Bookku (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 103 revisited[edit]

I have been unable to find a good secondary source for Yasmine Mohammed's participation in Motion 103 but have found a source which is the transcript from the Canadian House of Commons. Would it be okay for me to use that as a source (recognizing it is not a secondary source) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/meeting-85/evidence

I am hesitant to use yet another primary source. I look forward to input. Alhill42 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there's a little bit of secondary editorial about her parliamentary attendance here on page 81. http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/cjpme/mailings/1556/attachments/original/M-103_Report-e.pdf CatCafe (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CatCafe.Alhill42 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@ Talk:List of former Muslims#Rfc: Soft censoring of Ex-Muslim Articles It is said that there is no issue in writing about his/her opinion in their own articles.
WP:Primary policy says we can use primary source judiciously without adding our own interpretation or original research.
Really a good speech, I am selecting following texts to work on either as a section or Quote box or both.
Let us work on

Bookku (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bookku Alhill42 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Section Motion 103[edit]

Please update below Bookku (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M-103

"..The antidote to bigotry and fear
is education,
but M-103 is telling Canadians,
no, you have no right
to question, criticize, or fight
against ... ideology....You must
bite your tongue... turn the other cheek
... smile and nod..
"

– Mohammed, Yasmine.
November 8, 2017
Speech @ "Standing Committee
on Canadian Heritage"
[1] [2]

According to Yasmine Mohammed, While goal of M-103 is to put an end to bigotry against human being, M-103 is working against it's own purpose. Yasmine says, All Canadians need protection from discrimination, and all Canadians need freedom to speak out against all ideologies, but M-103 is serves neither of those purposes. Yasmine says several speakers have pointed out that as long as the term “Islamophobia” remains in M-103 , it will only end up dividing and causing more hate, more discrimination, and more fear.

Yasmine says the term “Islamophobia”, used in M-103 rather than protecting Muslims ends up protecting ideology of Islam; and that that those who are against the term “Islamophobia” are interested in seeing Muslims discriminated against, is ludicrous thought, an abominable tactic aimed to silence those who oppose misuse of term "Islamophobia". Yasmine says, Like most Canadians, she too wants all human beings to be protected and she will do everything in her power to facilitate such protection. However she does not want to extend such protection to ideas, as no ideas should ever be above scrutiny. Yasmine says, the term "Islamophobia" needs to be removed, clarified, or amended to “anti-Muslim bigotry” for M-103 to both protect human beings but not to protect any ideology.

Yasmine says, Canadians do believe in freedom of religion ; freedom from religion and also freedom of thought. But Canadians would not believe in laws which would aim to protect any ideology, including religion, from scrutiny, criticism, questioning, debate, and even ridicule. Yasmine says, Canadians ought to be careful to not be as tolerant that they would end up tolerating those things that should be intolerable. Yasmine says, Most Muslims came to Canada to escape oppressive laws that limited their freedom of speech, and they do not want those laws following them into the free western world.

"......M-103 wasn't around when I was a child, but its premise of Islamophobia is what caused a judge to send me back to my severely abusive family when I was 13 years old. He knew my family had hung me upside down in the garage and whipped the bottoms of my feet, but he sent me back anyway. He sent me back because, as he explained it, different cultures have different ways of disciplining their children. If only I had been born with white skin, then that judge would have deemed me worth protecting. But, alas, I came from the wrong culture, so I was sent back....In his aim to be culturally sensitive, that judge ended up being incredibly bigoted. He treated me differently from all other Canadian kids because of my cultural background, and that is unacceptable...." ~ Yasmine Mohammed [3]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/meeting-85/evidence
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference support was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/CHPC/meeting-85/evidence

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing nazis[edit]

Funny how wiki editors have glossed over the fact that Yasmine is a FAR RIGHT ACTIVIST. If you want to be neutral, at least mention that she has received criticism justifying hate crimes against Muslims, downplaying the KKK and so on. It is not like her fascist views are secret. She has been very open about it and its known since years ago: https://twitter.com/NiceMangos/status/980853645519605761?s=20&t=nYNExgiYUTLYRhBxkZ7c3Q Ymeine2023 (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Watch her on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNakS8gZ7Vg and judge for yourself. I personally think that support of woke-ists for militant islamism is as ignorant as it is deplorable. BACK OFF! 172.103.222.67 (talk) 03:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yasmine_Mohammed&oldid=1209122878"