Talk:Rupa Huq

Her Name

only one, not very authoritative source claims her name is Rabiah. No evidence as to where that comes from. " You've got two sisters, are they married? Well, the eldest one is married [Nutun]; she just had her second baby a month a go, and the other one [Rabiah known as 'Rupa'] is unmarried, like me."

Every other source quoted, of which there are now 40, gives her name as Rupa.Rathfelder (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Involvement in anti-Semitic dispute in the Labour Party

It is abundantly clear that Huq's involvement in what is developing into a major scandal for the Labour party is not trivial and is worth mentioning in her article. Huq's actions form part of her political career and was not considered trivial enough to be covered by The Spectator, a national political magazine, and The Huffington Post [1], an international news blog. As well as this, it was the BBC that held the interview in which she became involved in this scandal. If such prominent organisations are capable of realising the importance of Huq's comments I see no reason why Wikipedia should not. Mugsalot (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

But she's always appearing on the BBC and other news programmes. Are we seriously expected to mention every single one? She backtracked when she realised what comments Naz Shah had made. Only one person (and no one above the rank of councillor) has called for her suspension. She holds a tiny majority and so her local Tories are always sniping at her. By all means mention it on your local Conservative Facebook page, but it's just silly and not worthy of mention in an authoritative encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Reverted. Multiculturalist (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What is silly is your childish attempt to deflect and make this into an anti-Tory rant.

If you are under the impression this edit is for political purposes you are mistaken. Firstly, no other instance of her appearances on news programmes were related to a major scandal. Also, her political standing in her constituency does not ensure any negative mention of her by several major outlets are negated, even if she did backtrack her comments. Comments made by Livingston and Naz Shah in relation to this scandal are both featured on their articles, Huq should be no exception. Mugsalot (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Multiculturalist that the call to resign doesn't seem to be that notable and is just a normal snipe from a local politician that hasn't received much coverage. He comments themselves however have received quite a bit of coverage. I'm going to add a compromise version which I hope will satisfy you both. Brustopher (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it a scandal in the Labour party to be a snotty little racist? They're fine with jew-hating and homophobia after all, you can find photos of them waving Palestine flags. 2601:647:667F:F31D:716C:FE4A:6470:4845 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a 'badge of honour', no? "Oh, I didn't know what Naz Shah has said, I am being misrepresented, I am the victim here". Pats on the back from the likes of Sultana, Tulip and the like. And Wikipedia is calling her latest outburst 'allegedly racist', when even Labour (!!!) has seen fit to suspend her. Should really be booted out, but then it IS the laughable 'Labour' party, where Corbyn is both in and out.

Married

To remove the fact that she is married, or to promote the assertion that she "was" married - implying she specifically no longer is, you had better get a very good source to state definitively so. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no such evidence and recent sources, one at least reliable, indicate there is no change to her married status. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Parliamentary ejuaculation

Thanks to 90.86.96.163 for adding a secondary source. I should clarify my previous edit summary - I requested a secondary source, as opposed to a second source, because Hansard is a primary source. I don't doubt that the material in Hansard, but as a primary source it isn't very helpful for telling us whether something is notable or not. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

We only have to establish notability for the subject of the article. Not everything in it.Rathfelder (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Independent

Should we describe her as an independent MP at a time when she is only suspended, not expelled, from the Labour Party? PatGallacher (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

She sits as an Independent MP, therefore I think the categorisation is entirely correct. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)