Talk:Yvonne Ridley/Archive 1

Unsourced information

The line;
"After her departure from Qatar, she published an article about her experiences there containing numerous elementary errors of fact"
Has been marked as requireing a source for some time now, since it is quite a contentious assertion I am removing it untill a source can be found.--JK the unwise 13:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Capture of Saddam by Kurds

This article claims Yvonne Ridley broke this story, but discussions in many online newspapers suggest otherwise; in any event, it was almost certainly not the Sunday Express (that Ridley was then writing for) that first broke it; newspapers in the Middle East had it first. I have therefore edited this out. For reference look for example at the Sunday Herald piece - it's obviously a complex story. I think this must be just a piece of either vanity on Ridley's part of trumpet blowing by leftie islamicists in Leicester. MarkThomas 23:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re. "slanted addition"

The so-called "slanted addition" was a direct quote from herself. How can a verbatim quote be slanted?

Yvonne Ridley is a woman who has made a name for herself for her argumentative and outspoken and often very controversial views. It is only reasonable that this article reflects some of those views. That the cite leads to a Danish site is quite natural as it was in Denmark the remarks were made. In any case, it was of course only meant as the first of several quotes to describe examples of Yvonne Ridley's works.

Questionable quotation

This quote seems pretty dubious:

At a public conference in Copenhagen, July 2005 Yvonne Ridley when asked about jihadist recruiting videos that showed western hostages, she stated that it is a necessity for Muslims to view such videos as an alternative news source to what she viewed as the propaganda of Western media.[1] At the same meeting she compared British PM Tony Blair with Pol Pot.

The only source, unfortunately, is in Danish. From what I can tell, the article paraphrased rather than directly quoted Ridley, hence the statement should not be treated as a direct quote by her. Also, from the best I could tell from a rather bad automated traslator, there was nothing in the statement on hostages being slaughtered. I've rewritteten the sentence accordingly. Also, there's nothing in that article about her comparing Blair with Pol Pot, so I removed that statement. Whoever posted the above content should either find an English-language article about Ridley's statements in Copenhagen (Ridley's speech was probably in English anyway – I doubt she even speaks Danish), or translate the relevant section of the above article where Ridley is discussed.

BTW, in case anybody thinks I'm a sympathizer trying to sanitize Ridley, you'd be dead wrong. I find Yvonne Ridley to be an absolutely loathsome apologist for terrorism and religious extremism, actually. (I only wish she's actually made the above statements so they could be used against her!) Nevertheless, I take accuracy and NPOV on Wikipedia seriously and edit accordingly. Peter G Werner 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I found an English translation of a more first-hand report from the above-mentioned conference here. The language in the original statement above is basically accurate except for the fact that it treats the statement as a direct quote. I've changed the paragraph to reflect this. Peter G Werner 16:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ridley wasnt talking about terrorist recruitment videos. The quote was obviously taken out of context. I doesnt make tangible sense. The perception that anyone who speaks in favour of Islam or Muslims is an extremist smacks of ignorance and bigotry. She only defended the right of the citizens of invaded muslim countries to defend themselves against outside aggression. She has done so consistently as oppossed to western media who are happy to support Libyan rebels but labelled Iraqi insurgents as terrorists. She only considered legitimate, violence against combatants. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

NPOV

"Since her conversion Ridley has become increasingly outspoken on international political and Islamic platforms. Her vocal support for Palestinian issues and against the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has drawn extensive criticism from supporters of the State of Israel and US and British imperialists. Zionist websites have, in particular, targeted the RESPECT activist."

Let's try to keep this kind of stuff out of the article: particularly references to "Zionists", we all know what is meant by it and it hardly qualifies for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Driller thriller 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Adeladel's edits have crossed the line into vandalism. In any event, these revert are close to hitting the three-revert limit. Its probably time to bring in moderation on this. Peter G Werner 17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I've been thinking the same thing, but have never reached this point in the past, don't know how to go about it. Driller thriller 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, good call on that NPOV comment of his that I chucked out with the bath-water, I'm gonna be more careful next time. Driller thriller 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a procedure for it I'd have to read up on, but its only invoked if there's an ongoing dispute over page content rather than an isolated incident. We'll see if that's the case. Peter G Werner 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Adeladel edits 1-4 reverted.

Reverted some edits made by Adeladel.

Edit 1) and 2) contained a reference to non functioning site at: http://www.theislamophobia.com. And in any case it was merely a link to the front-page of the site, which supposedly is of little use.

Edit 3) contained some unsubstantiated allegations about a rather shady group of “Zionists” as well as the npov that Ridley should have “revealed” a fact about the demonstrators in Jordan (being spys and christians and a staged demonstration etc.), a (highly controversial) fact which is afaik far from a established fact. It finally also included a some superfluous bits about one of the used references also being stored on a site: muslimweekly.com.

Edit 4) likewise contained some superfluous bits about one of the used references also being stored on a site: muslimweekly.com.

Edit 5) contains some valid comments which have been worked into the article after the revert.

More Adeladel edits reverted

I've reverted more edits in a similar mould to his previous short-lived edits:

• Alterations to the body of the text that contradict referenced primary sources by Ridley herself.
• Discussion of "Zionists": the word should be avoided at all costs, it is too often a method of inserting some rather unpleasant anti-Semitic ideas into discourse.
• References altered to be factually incorrect.

There's no reason that Adeladel's viewpoint shouldn't be included in the article, it just needs to be properly referenced and NPOV. Driller thriller 10:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Adeladel is consistently altering one reference to read that it is archived at [www.muslimsweekly.com]: the link leads to the page it always has at FreeRepublic.com and I've checked and confirmed that the article isn't even on muslimsweekly.com. I don't want to get into a revert war over this, but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. The reference should say that the article is archived at FreeRepublic.com because it is archived at FreeRepublic.com: if Adeladel has a major problem with that site, and can provide a link to it archived elsewhere, from a scholarly source and in a complete form; then that would be a much better option than simply inserting inaccuracies into the article. Driller thriller 19:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a copy of the article at Muslimweekly.com, however, its not very well-formatted and the version archived at Free Republic is simply more readible. Its the same article, in any event, even if Free Republic is a far-right-wing website. (Neither Free Republic nor Muslimweekly is the original source for that Ridley article; I think it was originally carried by a website that's now defunct.) Also, Adeladel has been changing the text to read "archived at www.muslimweekly.com", even while keeping the original link, which still points to the Free Republic page – Adeladel simply has no good reason to be making the edit he's making, and that edit should be reverted. Peter G Werner 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed the Islamophobia Conference link from the page because it is all but dead, consisting of a banner and nothing more. Driller thriller 11:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Adeladel's talk page

Under the heading "research it" Adeladel added on his talk page his first response to the questions about his edits. I've copied it across to here so it's of more use:

research it

If you did your research thoroughly you would find that the Zarqawi article FIRST appeared on [www.muslimsweekly.com] which I have tried, unsuccessfully, to include in the interests of accuracy but my keyboard is malfunctioning. The Saddam Captured article was first written about by her when she was working for Al Jazeera in Qatar and when she was interviewed here by VOA and another US radio station about her article from her office in Qatar. Vain she may be but she was right which is why on Russian radio December 2003 Talibani reacted angrily to her story. She is many things but an anti-semite is not one of them but she is an anti-Zionist. Today I downloaded her TV show live and she had a New York rabbi talking about Israel, and during the show he ripped up the Israeli flag on air. By coincidence she did say on the show something like: Not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews. I hope now you will see me as an impartial observer and not some felon colored by Ridleys antics but I am a bit anal when it comes to being exact and factual just not a great master of dexterity.

I absolutely appreciate your attempts to improve the Yvonne Ridley article and support Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. However, the problems with your edits are not a matter of dexterity, they are a matter of maintaining the encyclopaedic standards of wikipedia. The objection to the use of the term Zionist in the article is not on the grounds that Ridley is or isn't an anti-semite, it is on the grounds that it is in and of itself an extremely POV term which not only does not add to the article, but can instead only prejudice its content. Its use is absolutely necessary when describing her opinions about "Zionism", whatever she might mean by the term in her own statements and her own opinion, and its incompatibility with the RESPECT programme, however saying that she has been criticised by "Zionists" is an ad hominem argument of an extremely questionable nature. Of the claims you make about the Saddam Captured article and [www.muslimsweekly.com]'s claims to the origination of the Zarqawi article: if you can reference the first then that must be included in the article, if not then there is no reason to change what is already in the article, an unsubstantiated, whether true or not, claim; and regarding the Zarqawi article, if it was first published there, then by all means change the link and reference it properly, the objection was to you blatantly crediting a source that wasn't linked. I hope this is all helpful, I, for my part, will have a look over the point you've made and see what I can salvage from it. All the best. Driller thriller 00:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just checked your claim that the Zarqawi article was published at Daily Muslims first, and I'm afraid to say you're mistaken: the article was posted at that site on November 27, the same day it was archived at FreeRepublic.com, however it was originally published at Tajdeed's website on November 23. Hope this helps. Driller thriller 11:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference 14 is a post on the FreeRepublic forum. How is this good material especially given the huge warnings at the top of the page about biographical entries?

How is it not? It is an article by Ridley herself, the dispute is not over the article itself but over whether the link should lead to a copy of the article or to a site that doesn't have it. Which would you prefer? Wind your neck in, mate. Driller thriller 21:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

terrorist Basayev vs. militant Basayev

Two points: a. It is better to use neutral terms in articles and leave the charged terms for the main article, i.e. we should argue about Shamil Basayev being terrorist or not in article about him, but not here. If for example we come to a conclusion one day, that he is after all not a terrorist, then we don't need to change all articles, which contain "terrorist Basayev". b. There is not much idea sticking this terrorist label to everybody. I have read the English transcript of the interview, and really this is not a basis to use epithet "terrorist" everywhere with his name. I have not read the Russian version, but anyway, this single sentence from an interview seems more like rhetoric, trying to stress that the "real terrorists" are Russians led by Vladimir Putin. --Magabund 21:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing my reversion to your edit on the talk page: I think that rather than sanitising our language on all pages except main articles we should instead endeavour to use the most accurate, or in reality the most accepted, terminology at all times. You're right there isn't much point in sticking the terrorist label on everyone: but there is a point in sticking the terrorist label on the man behind Beslan. Basayev, as you acknowledge, described himself as a terrorist during an interview with ABC, his exact words were: "I admit, I'm a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist". I think that's pretty cut and dry, whether you think this is mere rhetoric is up to you, but he has the acts to back up his words and most people agree with those words. Driller thriller 19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition he has claimed responsibility for the attack in Beslan, which has incurred near universal condemnation as a terrorist attack. From UN Security Council, EU, US, ... over Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, The Pope ... over Amnesty International, UNESCO, etc. If all these can call him a terrorist, i think Wikipedia would not be on too shaky ground by doing the same. Rune X2 09:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's been changed to "Chechen separatist leader", which is better than "freedom fighter" or the other alternatives that have been put forward, but I'm still not sure that it gets across the controversial nature of Ridley's comments if we sanitise the language in this way. I haven't changed it because I'd like a second opinion before I go in and start a revert war. Driller thriller 09:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to say that the less we use charged words (and wikipedia's own article on terrorism makes clear that "Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism.") the better. The word terrorist really does not have any information in it. In today's context it is as informative as calling someone "a bad guy". --Magabund 11:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you the guy who was edit-warring on other articles, insisting on describing various incidents as "terrorist"? [2] [3] Is it your view, then, that if a Muslim is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians he is not a terrorist, but if a Jew starts a small fire after hours in a library he is a terrorist? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. First I am against using the word "terrorist" as a fact (i.e. Y supported "terrorist X" in the article about Y), because it is not a fact but more likely POV label (it is disputable). Second, my view is that a "terrorist incident" is much clearer and definable regardless who was the perpetrator. This stems from fact that while we know probably most of terrorist incidents, it could be much murkier who the perpetrators (and/or puppetmasters) really were (multiple organisations claiming responsibility, no one claiming responsibility, etc). I will answer your personal (and good) question more specifically here: No, it is not my view that muslim is not a terrorist, but a jew is under some circumstances. The Beslan hostage taking is clearly more heinous act (or incident) of terrorism than Lavon affair, and that is exactly the point why I am against labeling people as "terrorists" *everywhere*. It is better to stick to facts and assume that readers can make their decision. Wikipedia should, in my opinion, be less charged and more factual than newsmedia, but even Reuters has a policy _not_ using the word "terrorist", except in direct quotes. --Magabund 11:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, so you claim one can decide that a specific incident is "terrorist", but not that the actual individual responsible is a "terrorist"? And exactly how can you claim that the evidence is "murky" with respect to Basayev, who proudly claimed responsibility for his actions, and even claimed the label "terrorist"? Moreover, how do these claims jibe with these recent edits [4] [5] adding Jews to Category:Terrorists? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Cat Stevens

The reference to Cat Stevens at the end of the article, besides needing a grammar fixup, seems out of place. It seems to be intended as exemplary, but it's not clear to me that it's an analogous example or that the mere reference is helpful in anyway. I propose removing the reference entirely. Yea/Nay?--Rumplefurskin 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Name "Controversy"

Using the "Christian name" after conversion to Islam is hardly a controversy. There are many converts to Islam who choose to retain their birth name (which may happen to be "Christian"). Muslims hardly take notice. Non-Muslims don't care either way. If it is a source of genuine controversy (and I would be surprised if it is), I would suggest the wikipedia contributor mention his/her source.Sage 16:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

List of "see also"

I have removed a list of three people, added by an anonymous editor. They appear to have no especial connection to Yvonne Ridley, other than being Muslims who speak publically. If someone wants to start a category to that effect, fine, go ahead, try it (but I don't think it will be allowed to stand). If their genuine connection to her can be described in a brief gloss, that would be useful. BrainyBabe 09:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

removal of section's first sentence

I have removed the following:

Since her conversion to Islam, Ridley has increasingly come under criticism for her controversial stances.

It is a good idea to have a lead sentence, but this one is misleading. The citation is to an essay or article by Ridley that does not deal with any criticism of her views. If notable people have criticised her, then that needs to be documented, not merely asserted. BrainyBabe 21:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Palestine

I noticed this edit can someone confirm if it is valid? Rich Farmbrough, 21:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

 Closed Section has since been removed. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)