Talk:Faiza Shaheen

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Faiza shaheen.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Better photo

We should find a better photo at some point. This one is blurred and leaves her face half in the dark. Jontel (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Concur, if a better one is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippeus (talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done The photo has been replaced by someone. Jontel (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"Controversies"

WP:CSECTION makes it clear we should avoid a controversies section, as we did with for example Change UK. Are we to remove this section? KarstenO (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, KarstenO. Have moved it into the chronological sequence of her career. Edwardx (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing a questionable sentence

For biographies of living persons, Wikipedia ask that they are balanced and avoid guilt by association WP:BLPBALANCE. This might be an issue for the sentence referencing the killing of Israeli athletes at Munich.

For convenience, the sentence reads ‘’ The newspaper (i.e. The Jewish Chronicle) noted that in 2018, on Sky News, Shaheen had defended Corbyn's attendance at a ceremony in 2014, in which a photo appeared to show him standing opposite the graves of Atef Bseiso and Salah Khalaf, two senior Palestine Liberation Organization officers who had been accused of links to a terrorist attack at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, which had killed 11 Israelis.’’

The context is that Corbyn was attending a conference about Palestine in Tunis with multi-party British parliamentarians and visited the cemetery with other conference delegates for a ceremony commemorating those killed in the Israeli bombing of the PLO headquarters in Tunis nine years earlier, a bombing condemned by the United Nations Security Council and the governments of the United States, Tunisia and Egypt.

Shaheen, who was a newly selected Labour parliamentary candidate, was interviewed on television in 2018 and, when asked about the recent Daily Mail article referenced above, expressed the Labour party position which was that Corbyn, who was party leader at the time of the interview and under multiple attacks from the media, condemned the Munich attack and had laid a wreath at the memorial of those killed in the bombing, not at the nearby graves of the two assassinated PLO officers.

Without going into the details of everything further, which is covered in other articles, I suggest that Shaheen expressing the official party position and defending the party leader in a TV news interview is what politicians generally do and is not noteworthy, so we should drop the sentence from her article. Keeping it, especially without any of the context enabling an understanding of the disputed events, seems to me to engender guilt by association and is unbalanced with respect to her biography. Jontel (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Removed Jontel (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Information on views about Corbyn and Starmer

As requested by the user who removed my previous contributions, I'm sharing my thoughts in the Talk page: In recognition of the fact the disagreeing contributor doesn't want views on antisemitism and Corbyn to be dwelled on at length during an election (although many would see such details as highly relevant), I've halved the amount of words on that, although what I cut was well-sourced, largely self-published by Shaheen or by mainstream media such as The Katie Halper Show, which she appeared on. However, to reduce further would risk leaving a misleading impression and suppressing clearly relevant information. The references aren't just 'internal social media' but largely mainstream sources or ones connected to Shaheen: Shaheen herself or media such as the Owen Jones Show, Michael Walker of Novara Media, and the New Statesman. The length of my first edit was intended to address what I see as a glaring imbalance on relevant issues, such as the lack of mention of views on Corbyn, by including Shaheen's own words on that topic. For example, would you remove mention in Paul Mason's article of his criticism of Corbyn due to them not being 'noteworthy or relevant'? In Shaheen's words, in the tweet cited, she joined Labour because of Corbyn and 'he opened up space for those of us who want systemic change, who want equality, compassion &those who haven’t & won’t forget the Iraq war.' As the rest of the article, such as the section on her book about inequality, shows, 'systemic change' and 'equality', to take two, are important to Shaheen and her career. If the reasons to support his suspension are important enough to her that they override that previous praise for him, surely it is highly relevant to what the rest of the article describes about the subject? Without this information, I think the article doesn't meet the B-class criteria of not containing 'any obvious omissions or inaccuracies': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment

Furthermore, the article prior to my edits has a strong focus on Shaheen's deselection and contextualises it with reference to allegations of, to quote verbatim, 'a cull of left-wingers within the Labour Party under Keir Starmer' - relevant, naturally, regardless of the fact that 'Shaheen is not a Labour Party member and has never been a Party official or publicly elected representative'. As Corbyn was on the left of Labour and has been suspended under Starmer, in my view leaving out information about support for Starmer over his suspension creates a one-dimensional picture. If another politician on the left of Labour 'culled' under Starmer had voiced support for Shaheen's suspension in a mainstream news publication such as The New Statesman, would it be judged neither 'noteworthy or relevant' and forbidden from being mentioned in their article? Under the same predicates established by these parts of the article I've mentioned, which has been contributed to extensively by the disagreeing contributor over a long period of time, these issues can't fail to be both noteworthy and relevant.

On the comment about an election, the information provided is necessary to minimise the risk of a one-dimensional portrait with or without an election, and, on the contrary, it could be seen as dubious that the information hadn't been included, and was then excised indiscriminately, in a time frame up to an election period. A politician seeking to become a publicly elected official should have their views open to scrutiny, again, before or after an election, without what many would view as key information being withheld. Polarlows (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:USER The Talk page is for discussion of the article. To limit or avoid discussion of you and your actions and approach, you should create an alternative forum for interpersonal discussion i.e. a user talk page.

WP:SOCK To maintain accountability and increase community trust, editors are generally expected to use only one account.’ Is ‘’Polarlaws’’ your only Wikipedia account?

WP:CAUTIOUS ‘Be cautious about making a major change to an article. Prevent edit warring by discussing such edits first on the article's talk page. An edit that one editor thinks is minor or clearly warranted might be seen as major or unwarranted by others. If you choose to be bold, provide the rationale for any change in the edit summary or on the article talk page. If your change is lengthy or complex, consider first creating a new draft on a subpage of your own user page and start a discussion that includes a link to it on the article's talk page.’ You did not discuss these major, lengthy and complex changes before making them, on two occasions.

I shall review your additions and then discuss next steps.

Note: WP:BLPRS ‘contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.’

1) ‘Shortly before the election in December 2019, Shaheen appeared in a video with Schneider promoting the controversial Observer/Best for Britain tactical voting guide.’ However, that is not supported by the source you quote. REMOVE Moreover, WP:RSP says use of the Morning Star requires an explicit in-text attribution.

2) ‘Faiza Shaheen’s campaign organiser in the 2019 campaign, Ravishaan S. Rahel Muthiah, worked as Angela Rayner's Deputy Campaign Director and Communications and BAME Lead during the 2020 Labour deputy leadership contest, from January to April 2020.[44]’ You use his LinkedIn as a source. WP:BLPSPS says ‘Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.’ REMOVE

3) ‘On a 20 October 2022 episode of The Owen Jones Show, Shaheen said that with a potential Starmer majority government, there is an opportunity to have ‘very clear, progressive stances’ on issues such as ‘unity’, ‘transparency’, and ‘democracy’, adding ‘I think that Keir Starmer understands that’. [46]’ It is hardly noteworthy that a Labour candidate thinks that a Labour government might be progressive. The remainder is so vague it has no clear meaning. REMOVE

4) ‘In interviews after being deselected by Labour, Shaheen appeared to continue to show limited support for some of Starmer's changes to the party with respect to the controversy involving antisemitism allegations. For example, when asked on Newsnight on 29 May if she had supported Starmer's 'transformation' of the party, Shaheen replied 'absolutely’. [61] In a Guardian interview, Shaheen said: "All the work rooting out antisemitism, that would never have happened if people weren't allowed to call out their own party.”[62] ‘ Her answers would be shared by the majority of Labour’s National Executive Committee and Parliamentary Labour Party. They are thus not exceptional amongst Labour politicians and hence not noteworthy. REMOVE

5) ‘U-turns on Corbyn and antisemitism allegations[edit]

On 19 February 2019 Shaheen said on the BBC’s Politics Live programme that Corbyn had ‘an impeccable record on anti-racism’.[65] [66] On 7 June 2019, also on Politics Live, Shaheen said, including with reference to the right of Labour, 'racism is really being used as a political tool' and ‘When you create a hierarchy of racism, you undermine all of us….It's been incredibly upsetting to see the hypocrisy and double standards of antisemitism and Islamophobia'.[67] [68]. In May 2019 Shaheen posted that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was 'neither independent nor credible'. [69]

Shortly after Corbyn’s 29 October 2020 statement on the EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party, in which he said "While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period", Shaheen posted: "Embarrassing to see people playing down the findings - not ok. Have to listen and accept to improve.”[70] In a June 2023 New Statesman interview, Shaheen endorsed Corbyn’s suspension from the Starmer-led Labour party: '"I think his statement was really stupid…. Keir Starmer set it up to be a zero-tolerance thing [on anti-Semitism] and once you've done that it becomes impossible for that statement to sit alongside it."’ [71] [72]’

Firstly, it is hardly surprising that a Labour politician defends the party leader (Corbyn) in media interviews and debates and then supports the leadership when they suspend that leader (Corbyn). Party politicians are expected to generally support the leadership of their party. Moreover, in the interim, the EHRC report came out, as did Corbyn’s reaction to it. The situation had changed so it is reasonable for Shaheen to respond to these developments. The great majority of Shaheen’s party colleagues did defend Corbyn in the media when he was leader and did later support his suspension. REMOVE

6) Header

‘and in the same year, despite having claimed to have joined the Labour Party because of Jeremy Corbyn, she endorsed his suspension over allegations relating to antisemitism.’ WP:LEAD says ‘In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents.’ With the removal of 1-5, this wording also falls. Even if it did not, it has other problems. It is not important. Moreover, it is a non sequitur: it is quite possible for a politician to change his or her mind about another politician after a period of time and in the light of developments. REMOVE

Your next step is not to make further similar edits, but to respond to these objections if you wish on this page in order to reach agreement.

ADVICE If you are genuinely a new user, you should familiarise yourself with policies and guidelines, as you would with any profession or activity. Here the most relevant one is WP:BLP. An article’s focus should be on actions and achievements. The subject’s views and the views of others about the subject may be included but primarily when they are clearly related to those actions and achievements. Politicians are expected to routinely express opinions on many subjects, often at the request of their leaders; such opinions are not significant in themselves.Jontel (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel-Gaza war

As the article contains passing mention to Shaheen's deselection being linked to tweets mentioning Israel and one reference from the Jewish Chronicle of Shaheen saying she was prevented from speaking out on Palestine, I think it would be relevant to expand on Shaheen's positions on the conflict. I received a notification saying the "Arab-Israeli" conflict has been designated contentious and so I'm unable to make an edit about it, as only accounts that made 500 edits can. My previous entry about it was deleted. I would appreciate it if any editor, recognising that this is an issue very relevant to a British politician in the current political context, can help. I accept that different points can be added about the topic, but my request is for the information I added to be restored. It also doesn't need to have its own heading, but can be part of the 'Political positions' section, for example. Here it is with some of the references, others can be found in my first edit:

"Shaheen called publicly and explicitly for a ceasefire in the afternoon on the 18th of December 2023. Starmer had called for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ earlier that day after Rishi Sunak and David Cameron called for a ceasefire on the 16th of December. Shaheen received criticism from pro-Palestine activists prior to calling for a ceasefire explicitly." Polarlows (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You wish to add that: ‘"Shaheen called publicly and explicitly for a ceasefire in the afternoon on the 18th of December 2023.[1] Starmer had called for a ‘sustainable ceasefire’ earlier that day after Rishi Sunak [2] and David Cameron called for a ceasefire on the 16th of December. [3] Shaheen received criticism from pro-Palestine activists prior to calling for a ceasefire explicitly.’ It is not noteworthy for a political candidate to support the policy position of their leader and party. If such statements were included in politicians’ Wikipedia articles, they would be the size of books. Politicians are routinely criticised by activists; again, this is not noteworthy.

Your next step if you wish is to respond to these objections on this page in order to reach agreement. Jontel (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)