Talk:Saira Khan

Untitled

I changed "revert" to convert the word "revert" sounds disgustingly derogative, and patronizing and sounds like regress, and suggests an implied opinion so in accordance of NPOV. I have modified the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Picer (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Saira Khan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014238/http://www.mediaambitions.com/sairakhan.shtml to http://www.mediaambitions.com/sairakhan.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928103522/http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/campaigns/causeceleb/Cause_Celeb_Saira_Khan_article_87475.html to http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/campaigns/causeceleb/Cause_Celeb_Saira_Khan_article_87475.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312065915/http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/community/communityasian/asianbooks/display.var.742690.0.pushy_sairas_aiming_for_business_success.php to http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/community/communityasian/asianbooks/display.var.742690.0.pushy_sairas_aiming_for_business_success.php

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) 04:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion

Do the sources available justify Saira Khan as being in "Category:British former Muslims", or "Category:British Muslims" as a non-practicing member of the faith? Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• My opinion: Khan's own column and third-party sources about the column say that she is no longer a practising Muslim. None use "ex-Muslim" or "former Muslim". She is another of the millions of British people who have a religion for the census or their employee file, but do not follow the rules of the faith. Her column showed her disapproval of social mores for women in Islam, and not the spiritual or theological aspects of it, which she partially endorsed. I am opening this up for RfC as I can't be on a one-man mission reverting every IP who has another opinion. Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neither: Sources indicate that she has very publicly said that she is NOT a practising Muslim, they do not say that she is NO LONGER a practising Muslim. Nor does anything else indicate that she has ever been - in any meaningful and defining way - a Muslim in adulthood. Khan joins millions of people of just about every faith and none, who may have been brought up in a particular religion (or none), but who do not follow that path in adulthood - or who keep quiet about it if they so choose. That she was brought up in a Muslim home and has publicly said she is not practising are both worthy of note, but neither makes her either an actual or ex-Muslim in any way, certainly not as a defining feature. Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neither. It's actually a potentially interesting question, since many non-religious people still identify as cultural members of a religious tradition. But on balance I would always err on the side of under-categorization. Btw: Rfcs should be preceded by discussion on the talk page (WP:RFCBEFORE). They shouldn't be the first attempt to resolve an editing disagreement. --Tserton (talk) 09:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neither, per Pincrete & Tserton - Idealigic (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neither if she does not practise or espouse Islam and does not proclaim it as a part of her identity nor proclaim having left it as a position, then neither one is a defining characteristic WP:CATDEF. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Neither If she neither identifies as a practicing or prominent Muslim figure, nor influential in Islam as a whole, I am not even sure how her faith is even relevant to the article. KuroNekoNiyah (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither All the sources that I've read say that she was never an observant practitioner of the faith, so then why label her as a former Muslim? Maqdisi117 (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Neither per above arguments. Eccekevin (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Taking note of

• Saira Khan: The BBC is a blanket of white middle class folk who don't mix outside their own groups talk radio

• Saira Khan Reveals She Was Sexually Abused At 13 Years Old , Loose Women

• Saira Khan On Being Sexually Assaulted And Her Views On Immigration , Loose Women

• https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tv/7610503/saira-khan-married-steve-hyde/

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Does this sexual assault mentioned Saira Khan On Being Sexually Assaulted And Her Views On Immigration , Loose Women in this youtube merits encyclopedic mention in article about herself? If not whether Saira Khan Reveals She Was Sexually Abused At 13 Years Old , Loose Women would merit an encyclopedic mention ?

So it is a case of encyclopedic merit can exist but may not fulfill technicalities being on youtube if some WP user objects (Out of love for own community). But silencing individual benefits which communities if communities are made of individuals and so many individuals suffering and silenced?

Assuming you will spare time to listen above mentioned YouTubes.If not then too ok. Best luck.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)