Jump to content

Talk:Asra Nomani

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

History

[edit]

Why do some people want to hide the fact that she gave birth to an illegitimate child? She certainly is not ashamed of that.

After the merge, the old histroy of this article have been lost. I want to re add some text from there. How do i acces it?

--Striver 09:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone paste here the link about her not being a relative to Nomani? http://www.dawn.com/2005/04/22/letted.htm#7

--Striver 11:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Family

[edit]

Who the hell cares? Prudes do . Are we now going to push the POV of prudes. I mean this is really scandalous. --CltFn 05:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI "prudes" are true and respectful Muslim girls, unlike Asra Q. Nomani.

Why remove info about her having a bastard if you dont care and the fact is true?

Don't be silly. This is 2006. The article doesn't mention a husband and says she was abandoned, so the story is obvious. Regarding your other edits, you're introducing grammatical errors and POV, which is why I reverted. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it slightly to indicate she was a single mother at the time, which was used previously. I do think that the insistence on "illegitimate" smacks of denigration. --AladdinSE 01:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "illegitimate" is pejorative. There is no need to use a pejorative term when there are so many value-neutral ways of communicating the same fact. I'm moving "illegitimate" out. Babajobu 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she is an activist lecturing the community on morality and gender issues. Her positions on sexuality outside of marriage and sexual morality are entirely relevent; she even champions them in her "Bill of Rights". If you want a more neutral sounding term, say "child outside of marriage" rather than "illegitimate son". 12 April 2006.

Why does it matter? This article is about her public, not private, life. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Daniel Pearl photo

[edit]
File:DanielPearlWithAsra.jpeg

I think this photo is great, but apparently bots or admins keep removing it, and it is listed for deletion, it because it has no source. Will the uploader please correct that and satisfy source and copyright information so we can have it in the article permanently. --AladdinSE 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I can I will get to that.--CltFn 01:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of unverifiable Image source

[edit]

CltFn, please stop removing the image of Nomani that I put in the article. If you really believe that I am a liar and this is not my photograph, that "the source is not verifiable," then by all means file a complaint and ask that it be listed for deletion. You have absolutely no case. No editor uploading a photograph is required to prove the source or copyright, which is impossible in the upload notes anyway. We are only required to state it. You of all people are the last to lecture on the sources of photographs, considering that you continually upload pictures without proper source and copyright information, for which you have been frequently rebuked [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] by administrators. In fact that very picture I was talking about earlier, Pearl with Nomani, was finally deleted after you failed to provide satisfactory source information. As for your objection to Nomani making a "grimace," she was not, it was just normal speech. I happen to admire and respect this author. This picture is a great deal better than the one you prefer, which is blurry and of inferior quality. What's more, it shows Nomani accepting an award form a gay Muslim advocacy organization, which has a linked article in Wikipedia. --AladdinSE 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just get a proper picture of her that cannot be interpreted as a lampoon of her. Yes I have been challenged on my photos and I can likewise challenge other editors' uploads as well--CltFn 13:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so now you are saying that you fabricated your objections regarding the source being "unverifiable," and knowingly altered the picture's licensing and listed it for deletion as a ruse, when really what you wanted a "better picture"? --AladdinSE 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I do think the picture is quite unflattering, and it would be best if another could be found. On the other hand, I think CltFn's behaviour regarding the image is WP:POINT at best, and verging on a blockable offence at this point. Jayjg (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any other useful pictures from that event, I wish I did because it's so unfortunate that a regular snapshot during the course of normal speech should be seen as unflattering. However, I will contact some other photographers and see if they have one where she looks as bland as possible without the remotest chance of raising any of these objections, and see if they are willing to grant a free license to Wikipedia for said photograph.--AladdinSE 16:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Her right vs. "what she sees as her right"

[edit]

"Her right" is less ponderous and perfectly POV. The statement does not suggest either that she is entitled to that right or that she is not, only that it is a right she demands. Babajobu 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Babajobu, it's a small thing, but I see you removed "what she sees as her right to pray" with the men, and changed it to "her right." I'm not sure we can assert that someone has a right to pray in a certain area of private buildings. It's not a legal right, and given that many philosophers will tell you there's no such thing as a moral right, it's not clear what kind of right we'd be saying it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's worded does suggest WP is saying she has that right: "Nomani became the first woman in her mosque in West Virginia to insist on the right to pray in the male-only main hall ..." SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Slim, I agree with those philosophers who say there is no such thing as a moral right. Perhaps that's why when I read "insists on her right" it doesn't occur to me that this asserts that the right exists on any fundamental level, but only that she insists on acquiring that right in the context of the mosque. However, if other readers interpret "insists on her right" as positing the objective existence of that right, then clearly it can be regarded as POV and you can go ahead and change it back. But I have to tell you, when I read "what she sees as her right", I read it as at least weakly implying that the right is a spurious one. Not sure if other readers do. And not sure where that leaves us. Still, if you want to revert, that's fine, I'm a newcomer to this article and am happy to take in the scene a bit before getting imperious about my edits. ;-) Babajobu 06:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I see what you're saying. Insisting on "the right" makes it more abstract that insisting on "her right" (implying she has one), which is how I first read it. By all means be imperious, given that you're usually right. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ridiculous picture

[edit]

Alladin, the problem with the picture is that makes her look ridiculous: her eyes are bulging, her facial muscles are contorted. Wikipedia doesn't generally run pictures like this when more neutral pictures are available. Babajobu 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are determined to find fault with a perfectly normal picture taken in the course of normal speech. Admin SlimVirgin has informed me that it is Wikipedia policy not to use Fair Use images when a free license picture is available. Moreover, the picture is at event that links to her advocacy on behalf of a progressive gay Muslim organization, Al-Fatiha which as a linked article in Wikipedia. --AladdinSE 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AladdinSE, please don't take this the wrong way, but it really does make her look ridiculous, that's why people are objecting to it. Is there no more flattering picture you can find? Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AladdinSE, I wrote the stub on the Al-Fatiha Foundation, and I would like very much to have more links to it! But not at the cost of running a picture that looks so silly. This is not a criticism of your camera work: you just happened to catch her at a very awkward moment. Of course, we do prefer to run free license pictures rather than fair use pictures...but we also prefer to run pictures that are typical of a subject's appearance rather than ones that make them look extremely awkward. You say we "are determined to find fault with a perfectly normal picture". What, may I ask, would be our motivation for doing this? The fact is we really do think it makes her look bizarre. Babajobu 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my last response to the "Claims of unverifiable Image source" section. I do understand what you're saying. I was thrown for a loop with that absurd and fabricated attack on the source of my photograph; and mistakenly grouped the other objections in the same light. I never personally saw anything like a grimace in the picture. I suppose this is because in my mind's eye I remember the pleasant speech she gave. It's just an unfortunate timing of the shutter in other people's eyes, I suppose. I don't have any other pictures of her that will do, but like I said in the previous section, I will be making some enquiries. I apologize if anyone was offended by the picture.. --AladdinSE 18:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right, the claim that your image source was unverifiable was absurd and outrageous, and the labelling of it as such even more so; I can well understand why it upset you. Jayjg (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegitimate" son

[edit]

Hmmm...well we seem to have multiple IPs who all agree that it's important that her child be identified as "illegitimate", even though this is a pejorative term used to communicate a point that is already expressed in a value-neutral manner elsewhere in the article. I've left notes on the talk pages of a couple IPs explaining why I believe this term is not helpful, but new IPs keep showing up and inserting the same comment. I've already reverted this twice today, and don't like reverting more than that, so I'm leaving it for now. Babajobu 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "illegitimate son" is pejorative. I don't see why these anonymous editors consistently require more clarification than the phrase "unmarried mother" amply provides. --AladdinSE 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read this for a clue. [6] --CltFn 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTCItalic text)

My deletions of judgemental text

[edit]

I am sorry to delete a significant piece of text, which evalustes and compares her efforts. My reasons are detailed in the article history, separate for each sentence, after my previous edit was reverted. I beg the editors to get themselves familiar with the policy about bios of living persons and rules of attribution. Colleague Sky7i, I am not questioning your edit comment: "Note that these statements simply report the reality of how her message has been received; not my judgments". I am saying that these judgements are not supported by proper references. Not to say that the first sentence of the deleted paragraph is poorly formulated, so that it is in fact wrong, although I understand what it intended to say. Mukadderat 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring proposal

[edit]

I have an idea for organizing the article I wanted to discuss here first. The paragraph in the beginning of the article about the mainstream's reaction to her versus it's acceptance of people such as Ingrid Mattison is relevant, but I think it should be moved down to the Career section. As it is, half the article seems to be up in the introduction before her bio even starts and it doesn't look right. I think this proposal makes sense, please let me know if there are any ideas for or against. MezzoMezzo 16:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please avoid the use of inline references

[edit]

I just changed a bunch of inline references into full references. Inline references should be avoided because they don't provide enough clues to later editors when they find the link expired. Full references have the date, the publication, the title, the author, all clues that help track down mirror sites.

Two of the links are currently showing up as 404. Maybe it is temporary. If they are still 404 a week from now they should probaby be released. Geo Swan 16:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

still 404 Geo Swan 09:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

revert -- see talk

[edit]

By all means we should remove unreliable links. But it should require more than a bald assertion that a link is bad to remove it.

Cheers! Geo Swan 09:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the burden of proof is on the editor who wants to use a particular source to ensure and demonstrate that the source meets the standards of relevant Wikipedia policies. 168.105.120.138 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:AsraNomani.jpg

[edit]

Image:AsraNomani.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pro-Nomani opinion piece masquerading as an encyclopedia entry

[edit]

I will likely either mark this article as POV or add content to balance against its exclusively pro-Nomani content. The anti-Islamophobia 'community' nearly universally holds an exceptionally poor opinion of her, and that needs to be reflected in this entry. Places to begin examining that other side of the story are here[7], here[8], here[9], here[10] and here[11].Haberstr (talk) 11:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism deleted

[edit]

They deleted criticism just so she can sound better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.0.97.154 (talk) 20:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asra Nomani. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asra Nomani. 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:

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) 19:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User(s?) deleting incoming links to this page

[edit]

I want to bring it to the attention of the group here (and I hope I am posting at the appropriate spot) that at least one user is systematically attempting to remove incoming links to this article from other existing articles in Wikipedia. Please see the following:

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally - These are now under a Sockpuppet investigation:

KConWiki (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Religion?

[edit]

I understand that this is a contencious topic, but I am a bit confused by the layout of the article, the article is included category:Former Muslims turned agnostics or atheists yet half the article is dedicated to Nomani's movement to have women accepted in the same mosques as men in North America. If the subject truly is irreligious then why would she be campaining so hard for the right to go to the mosque? Inter&anthro (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone recently added that category for unclear reasons. It's been removed. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist Cite

[edit]

None of the citations linking Nomani to The Federalist indicate that she works for the Federalist. None of the citations mention her name, or even indicate that she was involved in the referenced articles. She is listed a a contributor on the Federalist's web site, but unless there is a credible 3rd party reference about her articles, I think the entire thing should be boiled down to "She is listed as a senior contributor to The Federalist website." with a link to that article. Jbmcb (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asra_Nomani&oldid=1244899111"