Talk:Malia Bouattia

Black and Muslim
There's no references as to her being a black person, the only information about her backgroun mentions her being of algerian decent, nothing else; unless references are provided, the use of racial categorizations should be refrained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.7.111.184 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016
change the words "having been elected" to "elected"; grammatically unnecessary.

"which have since been described by Jewish students and national newspapers as anti-semitic.[2][3]" should be "that have been described by Jewish students." The word since is unnecessary. The word "which" typically functions for a non-restrictive clause, the clause is a restrictive so it should be "that."

Massexodus (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Talk! 16:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

CAGE as controversial
Why did your remove "controversial" as a descriptor for CAGE from the article? The fact that they are controversial is why the NUS' affiliation to the group was an issue during the election campaign. With the current phrasing it kinda just looks like Megan Dunn hates human rights. Brustopher (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You are right, but "controversial" or "controversies" are over used words on Wikipedia. "Controversial" is also a peacock word which usually conveys little. I will look in to resolving the problem. Philip Cross (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

She hates Jewish human rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:FD0B:CA00:644F:F569:65B7:A043 (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * What nonsense. I see that the above poster subscribes to the "criticism of israel and Zionism is anti-Semitism" line of thought, which is hyperbolic, inaccurate, and childish to say the least. 2607:FEA8:A4E0:11EC:595A:AC6:4FFB:DD5E (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Birth
Where and when was she born? The Guardian quote her as saying "One week earlier, I sat petrified under my primary school desk as terrorists rained gunfire on our teachers." (In Algeria it seems) and that she arrived in the UK not speaking English, however, The Times say "Although Ms Bouattia describes arriving in Britain aged seven, her birth was registered in Norfolk in 1987" and give her age as 28. If she did reach school age in Algeria and was aged 7 when moving to England by 1987, she would be about 36 now. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe her birth was registered retroactively? It could be that the UK authorities considered the Algerian papers insufficiently valid and issued new ones, or that the papers were lost during the emigration. Of course, it could also be that Mrs. Bouattia doesn't entirely speak the truth. It is hard not to think of Rachel Dolezal whenever she describes herself as "black". Judging by her looks (and I do find her quite pretty or at least very photogenic), she may well be over 30 years old in 2016. --Edelseider (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

black?...
Should Malia Bouattia be mentioned as being the first black president of the NUS? 58.110.0.55 (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

she is clearly not black, not in looks or in heritage. if you have any source saying she is black with any real evidence (not only stating she is black, but showing real reasons for this as well) you may add it, but for the time being, i am deleting any "black" reference from the article.

photos of her, showing she is not black:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/04/20/15/335E211400000578-3549948-Elected_Malia_Bouattia_was_today_elected_as_the_new_president_of-a-19_1461163640769.jpg http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/article_large/public/thumbnails/image/2016/04/15/13/maliabouattia.jpg

please do not revert my change without clear evidence not only saying "... a black muslim ....", but backing it up too. Rachel Dolezal was considered black too, she is not.

Phantom147 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is a fine article, too: NUS At War Over ‘Politically Black’: ‘Antisemitic’ President a ‘Rachel Dolezal’. Cheers, --Edelseider (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources clearly say she's black. Whether she looks it or not is irrelevant—she could be only partially black; that doesn't disqualify her of such an identity. Unless sources can be provided that verifiably show she is lying (unlike the baseless opinion of one Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff from the wiki artice), we have no proof or reason to disbelieve her.122.30.92.196 (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, what about the article I linked to right above? Here are the relevant quotes:
 * The newly elected NUS president, Malia Bouattia – who’s currently embroiled in anti-Semitism row and causing mass-disaffiliation campaigns from the NUS – is also a Black Students’ Officer known for “Political Blackness” – despite being from Algeria, and not actually a black woman at all.
 * and
 * Multiple black students expressed resentment over their identity being hijacked by non-black people who don’t share the same experience and are often guilty of anti-black racism in their ethnic community..
 * Not easy to pretend this never happened or doesn't exist. --Edelseider (talk) 08:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I have removed 'first black' from the lead as there is clearly some dispute about her 'black'ness here and even amongst her peers. Strong sources such as the Guardian describe her as 'Black'. Sources such as the dailymail are not good rebuttals. Can we compile a quick list of how the various media describe her? Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest i don't see how the amount or quality of the sources linked reference her as black, they do not provide evidence for any of it what so ever, also, we have evidence to the contrary! her ethnicity is clearly Algerian, her claiming black (with no evidence what so ever) proves nothing. "we have no proof or reason to disbelieve her" - Yes we do, we KNOW she is Algerian, clearly not a black ethnicity, and she is not mixed according to her, 100% Algerian as far as i understand. i take you back to the Rachel Dolezal case. we had "no reason to disbelieve her" too, well, disbelief does not need reasons, only belief needs reasons. i suggest you do not edit the article until providing a source with more than reference of being black. political blackness is not acceptable. i also think it is deception, and very very racist actually, i don't see why anyone should support it, especially Wiki. Phantom147 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason why we should remove her black identity. We have articles by such respected sources as The Guardian, BBC, IBT and The Economist that clearly state she is the first black leader. Some of the articles even mention this fact in their titles—such is their confidence. The sources that question her blackness are Heat Street (a 2-month old news blog) and New Statesman. Furthermore, their questioning of her blackness is confined to quoting some "black students". No evidence is provided by these black students for their doubting her blackness. For all we know they could just be jealous that such a light skinned person is acknowledged as a prominent and historic black leader. Beyond these students, we have no other questioning of her blackness, nor does she admit she isn't black. Therefore, there is no substantive evidence to deny her the title of being the first black NUS president; by all means these students' comments can be included in the article but they don't warrant inclusion in the lead section or the removal of 'black' from the lead. Also, drawing comparison with Dolezal is a false analogy because Dolezal admitted what many others were arguing against her blackness, and the evidence against her was exhaustive and overwhelming. Also, i'm bemused that editors think that because Bouattia is Algerian that she can't at all have black in her. Algerian is a nationality, not an ethnicity; therefore, she could have black in her just as she could have berber or arab in her.58.110.0.55 (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * show me any source saying she has black heritage or anything of that type OTHER then saying "first black...", there is none as far as i can tell. also, i want to see some source about Dolezal "admitting" she wasn't black. she said she identified as "black", not that she wasn't actually black. also, until her parents came out and said "she is not black and we are not black" i don't think you had any evidence against her. if there was, please link sources, otherwise, your argument is simply false. as far as i am concerned Malia Bouattia is just as black as Dolezal (NOT black what so ever) until you give further sources or evidence to the contrary. you cannot simply claim she is black because she says so, and other (very respected news sources, i grant you that) just repeating after her. if they checked she was black they could have referenced something, but NONE did! i do not understand why a black person would have such a hard time proving they were black, that is at the very least suspicious, considering that she was accused multiple times by news sources and colleges of not being black. a black person, especially a public figure, would have no problem what so ever showing something to backup that claim. not saying or showing anything regarding this is at the very least cause for skepticism. i do not see everyone's problem with delaying the "black" reference until someone could provide proper backup. that should not be that hard. please, answer my arguments instead of saying "the guardian said she was black". i will contact the guardian myself and ask them about it if it will calm people down about the race politics in here... oh and BTW, you said Algerian is a nationality not an ethnicity, well two can play that game, black is a color, not an ethnicity... if you want to talk about her ethnicity, and not her color (which is clearly not black), i'm fine with that, what ethnicity does she claim to be? Phantom147 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you should do that (contact the Guardian) - I mean, the incredible thing is, how much this woman is embroiled in racial questions on all sides: on the one hand, she has been (quite reasonably) accused of anti-Jewish racism, on the other hand, she defines herself as "politically black", which is rejected on racial grounds by "skin-color Blacks". And don't even get us started on her stances on Muslim solidarity. The NUS did itself a disservice by electing someone who appears so obsessed with questions of "belonging". It won't help the students. --Edelseider (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Edelseider: Like your friend Phantom147, you are simply spouting your own personal opinions and emotions into the argument. What has her "anti-Jewish racism" and "Muslim solidarity" etc. got to do with coming to an agreement regarding her blackness? Please don't try and divert this discussion with unrelated issues. Also, you said she defines herself as "politically black". Can you show me where she says this? If you can then we will have no issue to discuss and i will gladly agree to the removal of black. If not, you should be careful before you make such baseless claims.58.110.0.55 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Phantom147: Your arguments are full of your own personal opinions—not based upon facts or common sense. The multiple prominent sources saying she is black are enough to prove her blackness, unless proper evidence is provided that she isn't black—which haven't been provided. Two sources quoting obscure students don't count as serious enough to undermine the multiple sources that say she is black. You need to prove that all these multiple, respected sources are being duped and propagating a lie. Dolezal admits her whiteness here. You said as far as i am concerned Malia Bouattia is just as black as Dolezal (NOT black what so ever). Well, unfortunately, what you think based upon personal preferences (or prejudices) counts for absolutely nothing. People may also think that Steven Curry doesn't look black enough, but that wouldn't be a legitimate argument—just personal opinion. You said i will contact the guardian myself and ask them about it if it will calm people down about the race politics in here. Thanks, but no thanks. Why would anyone trust you that you actually contacted them and received a reply from them?58.110.0.55 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * thanks for the "like your friend" comment, like my "friend" (which i do not know in any way or form) has said, i have my own mind and just because two people don't think the way you do that does not mean they are connected in any way, i would like you to stop with this personal stuff, it is demeaning to the subject and does not validate your opinion in any way (in case you thought so). also, my arguments are only ever referring to my personal opinion because you did not address my logical and reasoned arguments. my logical argument was time and time again "show me more then black reference", show me black heritage, show me anything in addition to saying she was black, you did not because you can't so you divert the conversation, that's emotional and irrelevant. also, your source did not disprove my point AT ALL, it actually supports my point, see source here: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rachel-dolezal-parents-dispute-daughters-account-nbc-interview-n376826 where her parents say she was not white in JUN 17 2015, months before your source, as i said, they came out with the story first, and only then she admitted, i have nothing to add to the matter as you have obviously supported my point. i agree with my opinion having no say in the matter, but it's not just my opinion, it's OUR evidence. you have failed to show any evidence to support the black claim, and as we can all agree Dolezal is absolutely not black, we all have the same amount of evidence to support Malia Bouattia claim for blackness. i was mistaken to put it as if it is only my opinion, it is OUR evidence. also, as a funny fact to add to what you said, in the Steven Curry page the word 'black' is not mentioned even once! (only remotely close mention to "black" is the "African-American" categories he is in), i have no opinion on the person (Stephen Curry) and do not know anything about him, but it seems to me that if it's not SO important to mention his blackness, maybe it's not so important mentioning it in this article, which is also in dispute, which i assume his blackness is not. it seems your sources are supporting my arguments, not yours. trying to finish this dispute, i would recommend keeping the "black" reference out of the top paragraph, and adding a section about the dispute over her color/ethnicity/what ever you may call it. it can mention the many sources saying she is black, and also adding the sources that claim otherwise. i do not see any value in adding this as a fact in the top section, i hope you agree to this compromise... also, about the guardian statement, there are many ways to get the info from them to here, but the way you are hostile towards me, as if i would LIE and cheat you so that i could get "my way" or something, as if i do not only want what is true and accurate, is very, very concerning. i believe you do in fact have a conflict of interest or at the very least know Malia Bouattia. no one accused anyone of lying or cheating here until you came along. why would you "trust me"? what a joke...Phantom147 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @User:58.110.0.55 - Phantom147 is not my friend. People can be able of independent thought. Likewise, you very much seem to be working for Mrs. Bouattia and/or the NUS. Almost since its creation, Wikipedia has been a place where institutions and individuals manage their own public relations or pay agencies to do so. If you have a conflict of interests, you'd better step out. --Edelseider (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Edelseider: Your accusing me of a conflict of interest?! I think any outside observer would be able to tell that, of the three of us, my arguments are the least emotive and most relevant. I made a RfC, so hopefully we will soon receive some rational comments from outside editors. Let's just wait and cool down in the meantime.58.110.0.55 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * i actually agree with Edelseider, you seem over-protective of her, and just about a single word, which is key in Malia Bouattia politics... although it is already mentioned in the article that she claims to be black, i do not see the reason for the hostility. Phantom147 (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Include from Black British, The term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain, ie, in the UK the term is widely used for people other than from sub-saharan-African heritage. Ethnicity is also self-identification and should not be used where the person has not so identified. In the US, black and African-American are almost interchangable, with the latter being slightly more 'formal'. In the UK either 'black' or reference to the person's specific background tends to be used (eg Caribbean). If RS have referred to her as 'black', I don't see why not to use the term. … … ps a single source seems to be doubting her use of the term, based on what we don't know, and implicitly that source is accusing her of 'playing the race card'. That doubt is given ample coverage in the body, but isn't a basis for excluding in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC) … … pps if used, the term 'black' should perhaps be linked to 'Black British', since this use is not universal. Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC) … … pps I notice the 'Spectator' appears to be a blog, Spectator blogs have more weight than Joe Soap ones, but not the same weight as 'in print', if used it should be attributed to the blogger. Pincrete (talk) 10:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd agree to include the term "black British"... although Mrs. Bouattia wasn't born British at all. But the way team Bouattia is trolling the article in order to label her as black from the start (and she does have issues with bigotry and supremacism of her own) makes me want to puke. --Edelseider (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nationality on WP is normally 'at time became prominent', eg this lady is British, para 2 or 'early life' says where born or when naturalised. This guy is 'German', this one is an 'American born English poet'. So it isn't relevant that this lady may not have been born British. Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Edelseider: Now you are just sounding desperate and out of excuses with your flippant allegations. Yes, i am "team Bouattia", which is why i am an Australian editing from Australia! (Sarcasm intended in case you missed it.)58.110.0.55 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Guys/Gals drop the two-way mud slinging and snarking. It makes both of you look bad. Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It should be in the lead, but also note that some dispute this view: It's obvious that everyone has a different opinion about whether or not Bouattia is black. Wikipedia isn't meant to decide; we aim to present the scholarly consensus. Where there is real and significant disagreement, we present the range of views. A statement such as "Bouattia has stated that she is the first black and first Muslim president of the NUS, a view which is supported by the BBC and the IBT . Others, such as The New Statesman and Heatstreet have contested this claim, accusing her of "political blackness".
 * @ Orthogonal1: The rejection of her blackness is already mentioned in the body of the article; since it is the minority view i don't see why it should be added in the lead. You also said "Bouattia has stated that she is the first black and first Muslim president of the NUS", but is that what she says about herself or is that what the news articles say about her?58.110.0.55 (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really care whether or not the minority view is in the lead, but my concern is that the majority view is being presented as truth, even though there is no consensus among external sources.
 * I've found a statement she made saying this herself: "It feels like a really powerful statement, especially to be the first black woman, the first woman of colour in the post" -. Orthogonal1 (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @ Orthogonal1: Yes but as i and Pincrete have argued, there is no reason to believe it isn't true, especially considering the weakness and sparsity of the opposing view. Giving that minor voice a podium in the lead section would be giving it undue weight. It's also worth noting that in the weeks since the last articles rejecting her blackness not a single follow-up article has been written to build upon this argument—despite her being a quite maligned figure in the media. This strongly suggests that reporters realised they had very spurious evidence to go by. 58.110.0.55 (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The opposing view isn't that weak that we can disregard it. It's not just one person saying this; I found two sources that said this. I don't think that anyone disputes that she's the first Muslim president. Would you be willing to compromise and include a statement like "She is the first Muslim head of the NUS", without mentioning blackness at all? Orthogonal1 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree "The opposing view isn't that weak that we can disregard it." That is why it is included in the body of the article—it isn't being disregarded. However, two sources, one of which is a blog of a newly-formed website, can't outweight the many more and varied sources that support her blackness. Therefore, her blackness should be kept in the lead because to remove it would be giving undue weight to those two fringe views. I think the article, as it stands, maintains the right balance. 58.110.0.55 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * We both seem to be going around in circles. :) We've both made our arguments, and the closer will be the ultimate arbiter of which one of us is closest to consensus. Great to have had this conversation! Orthogonal1 (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, The Telegraph says "the NUS’s salaried black students’ officer"  without making any claim as to her ethnicity. The BBC makes a statement "The National Union of Students has elected its first black Muslim woman president, Malia Bouattia." which is unclear as to whether she is specifically ethnically "black" or "black Muslim" as it lacks any commas at all in the headline. The body of its article makes no claim at all as to her ethnicity. RT labels her as "black" in its headline, but not in the body of its article. The Guardian uses the same comma-less phrase in its headline, then quotes her specifically as self-describing: "“It feels like a really powerful statement, especially to be the first black woman, the first woman of colour in the post.”"    We can clearly state that she self-describes as being "black" but the fact is that the main sources avoid making that claim as a matter of fact on their own, and, in fact, seem to conspicuously avoid the categorization of her as "black." Collect (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC).


 * @ Collect: Don't forget The Economist source that was also cited: "The 28-year-old became the first black and first Muslim head of the organisation." 58.110.0.55 (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Um - did you read what I wrote? Where strong sources make clear the term is a self-description, we use the strongest sources.   If I found one source using "Arab" would you then feel we should add that as well?    states that "black" is used for "multiple ethnicities" which means the term is blurred a great deal from common usage. "On the NUS website, the Black Students’ campaign describes itself as “the largest constituency of Black students in Europe and students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent, at a local and national level on all issues affecting Black students”"      Would you consider such a definition to be proper then for Wikipedia to label all Arabs, Africans and Asians as "black"?  Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Um, you have clearly misrepresented the NUS website statement. Your NUS quote clearly differentiates between "Black students" and "African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent" students. Nowhere does your quote even hint that Black, African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent students are the same thing. Nor do the sources mention Bouattia as the first African or Arab, so we don't have the liberty to include such statements. Besides, strong sources provided make clear the term is both a self-description and a description made by article authors, so that is what we go with. 58.110.0.55 (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Bolding: and students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent, at a local and national level on all issues affecting Black students” seems on normal reading of English to say all of those students are affected by "all issues affecting Black students" - is there a problem? Using the NUS statement, the person self-identifies with Black students in general - where that group includes the other groups per the simple English of the NUS site.  Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * You have selectively quoted while ignoring the context. The full racial spectrum is quoted thus: "the largest constituency of Black students in Europe and students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent". It is obvious that Black students are seperate and differentiated from students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent. Otherwise the quote would have read as "students of Black, African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent." It seems to be a poorly worded attempt to convey that the NUS Black Students group is focused upon black students but also supports the interests of students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent. Are you seriously implying that the authors of that statement are so stupid as to think Arabs and Asians are Blacks?58.110.0.55 (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly note you appear to have stopped reading my post before:
 * "and students of African, Asian, Arab and Caribbean descent, at a local and national level on all issues affecting Black students” 
 * Which I suggests means that all of those groups are affected by "all issues affecting Black students". Did I misquote that phrase? To me, it suggest the "Black students" concerned thus include all of the other groups named. I am amused, moreover, that South and Central Americans, Native Americans, Indigenous Australians and Polynesians are not included by the NUS statement. Collect (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well you shouldn't be too amused. Most likely, these other groups were not included because they are such a numerically insignificant population in the UK compared to the sizeable minorities of the other groups that are mentioned. I mean, seriously, how many South and Central Americans, Native Americans, Indigenous Australians and Polynesians would there be in the country? Again, to me the wording is quite clear, and you would struggle to explain how the author/s of the statement could be so stupid as to ever consider Arabs and Asians to be Black—assuming your interpretation is correct. 58.110.0.55 (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * LOOK, it's getting kind of ANNOYING editing back your edits of an unresolved matter. please stop with this edit fight. i talked to a moderator and he will sort this out or bring someone to decide what to do. until then, DO NOT EDIT AN UNRESOLVED MATTER. i see that this is close to your heart (maybe you are yourself Malia Bouattia... i wouldn't see any reason for being this caring about it, you clearly have some conflict of interest...), but you are vandalizing this article. STOP IT. i do not want you to get banned for vandalism.Phantom147 (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You said "i talked to a moderator and he will sort this out or bring someone to decide what to do." Can you please show me where you made such a request, or are you just lying to justify your content removal and stall the discussion? If you are truthful i will accept the removal (for now); however, if you are lying then it is you who should be reprimanded and rejected. I have already answered above your claim of a "conflict of interest"; i could just as well question your obsession with removing the black edit. Are you a dark-skinned person who can't accept that someone who has made black history is — aghast! — light-skinned? 58.110.0.55 (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * first of all, i am telling the truth. secondly, i tried to let it go for a couple of days because you said you made an RfC (i am not that obsessed with this article, which you ARE. also, i am black, because anyone can identify as black and get your defense just like Malia Bouattia the antisemite does. wouldn't you agree?), but it doesn't seem to help at all. i do not appreciate you accusing me of lying all the time. i did contact a moderator. he will bring this to a resolution. STOP EDITING THIS ARTICLE. RIGHT NOW. have a nice day.Phantom147 (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * "first of all, i am telling the truth." I asked you for proof. If i trusted your word on face vaue then i wouldn't have asked you in the first place, so please answer the question. To help you out, here is a list of all your contributions; all you have to do is point me to the relevant edit. "i am not that obsessed with this article". It appears you are obsessed since all your edits have been on this article. "i am black". Are you? Do you have a citation that supports your claim? "Malia Bouattia the antisemite". Your repeated use of unrelated insults only proves you're editing this article for ulterior motives — not objective at all. "i do not appreciate you accusing me of lying all the time." If you can't prove you contacted a moderator then you are indeed lying. Lying to stall the improvement of an article and peddle your version is not something to be taken lightly; i will bring your lying to attention for other editors to see. 58.110.0.55 (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

"all your edits have been on this article" well that's just wrong, i have other edits, in English and Hebrew... "Do you have a citation that supports your claim?" clearly you cannot get a joke. also, this is not a Wikipedia article so nice try getting my argument turned against me but try again. "not objective at all" well at this point you accusing me of being not objective is just funny. also you did not answer the question raised there. so i will not answer your accusation. "i will bring your lying to attention for other editors to see." ????, is that supposed to be a threat or something? i did not lie about anything and i am not intimidated by you... now there is a mediation going on, so stop editing the article until the mediation is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom147 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "I asked you for proof" well i talked to the moderator outside of Wikipedia, but i just got a message from MediationBot‬ about this article, so that is proof i guess...

Using foul language will not help us achieve anything. I have raised this matter to the mediation committee at Requests_for_mediation/Malia_Bouattia. Please accept or reject the request in the relevant area so we can keep calm and continue on. Bharel (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Black identity
I'm reclassifying Bouattia as a black Briton. She identifies as such, is classified as such by RS (the Guardian), and is honest about her basis for her identity (Algerian heritage). The definitions of racial categories are socially constructed. Unlike the US, where the term "black" is typically reserved for sub-Saharan African ancestry, "black" in the British context is a more amorphous term, and is often used to include North Africans. 162.97.179.26 (talk) 07:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Bouattia states that she is black on the basis of her established (Algerian) heritage--a claim that, while controversial, is grounded in ample legal and sociological precedent. North Africans have often--though not always--been considered black people, particularly outside the US. See Black Britons and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Northern_Africa
 * You can certainly disagree with or criticize her identity, as a minority of the media do. It is a matter of controversy that is covered in the article. But comparing her to a notorious liar--a comparison that no RS, including the minority that are critical of Bouattia's racial identity, have made--is defamatory and speaks ill about your commitment to the project. Steeletrap (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record: I'm not a fan of Bouattia's politics. She espouses antisemitism and a hectoring, "safe space" feminism. I am defending her on the merits of BLP policy. Steeletrap (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Kindly redact your comments concerning my posts. I have made no posts "bordering on defamation" whatsoever, but your claim is perilously close to attacking other editors, and to making a veiled legal threat through the use of the legal term of art "defamation."  Making claims that any editor has "defamed" a living person might well end up as an AN/I matter.    Note especially that I did not at any point make the comparison you boldly assert that I made.  Collect (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think it works that way. Sorry. We had a VERY long debate and an RFC and a formal mediation about this. and it was settled. I am now removing this "black British" thing from the article. You have no right to disregard the discussion and RFC and mediation above. about the exact same subject in the exact same article. This is borderline scandalous. Do not make any other changes to the article referring to this "black" claims which were ALREADY addressed.
 * Also, to Steeletrap, "border on defamation" - well, tell her to sue me then. not an argument. Also, as the one raising that comparison, I can tell you that the comparison was between the legitimacy and accuracy of the claim, and not the legitimacy or accuracy of the evidence presented. I said, correctly, both Rachel Dolezal and Malia Bouattia have NON-BLACK parents (and no one disputes this, to this day), and both claim to be black, identify as black, or want in their deepest dreams to be black, but are in fact NOT BLACK what so ever. that was the comparison, this is where it begins, this is where it ends, and there is not one fact wrong about that. the defamation claim is simply ridiculous. also, about the "Black Britons" - irrelevant, she never claimed to be a "black briton" as far as i have read and seen. she claims to be "black", and the sources never clarify this meant black briton. the sources are using american english mostly. they did not feel the need to clarify about the "black britons" issue. therefore, her claim is for regular commonly used "black", and therefore your claim about "black britons" is irrelevent at best.
 * if further editing of this article will be made without the conclusion of this issue i WILL bring moderators here. don't think they would like to see edits on a formaly settled issue.
 * also, i have no problem with the article as it is right now, with the "She identifies (and is referred to by the mainstream media) as a Black Briton ...", this is neutral and fair. and also factual. i think the article as it is right now is OK, and should not be changed.Phantom147 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The term "black" has not historically had the fixed meaning you ascribed to it. North Africans have often been included. You are assuming that a contemporary American anthropology is true of all times in places. Steeletrap (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you give us a cite for the general inclusion of north Africans as "black" in British usage, please? I think you might be right, and that you might be wrong.  I would think that, for example, calling Qaddaffi "black" on Wikipedia would have had interesting results.  Or telling a person in Japan that Hirohito was "black."
 * http://jech.bmj.com/content/58/6/441.full is used as a reference in the Black British article. "In some circumstances the word Black signifies all non-white minority populations, and in this use serves political purposes."  The problem here is that this source suggests support for that all-encompassing usage is clearly waning.  Wikipedia should not, therefore, use a controversial definition without clearly mentioning that this definition is "political" and controversial. Collect (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This subject is under dispute, and was already settled in previous discussion. You cannot go around editing things under dispute, this is not how Wikipedia works. I will bring a moderator here if you do this again. As for your comments, her identification and heritage are CLEARLY and OBJECTIVELY represented here, and the dispute over her race is also represented here. I do not see any reason in changing the this part of the article as it stands right now other then to deceive innocent readers. Please read the following:
 * She identifies (and is referred to by the mainstream media) as a Black Briton on the basis of Algerian heritage, and has been elected by peers to head various organizations for black empowerment; however, her racial identity has provoked controversy from commentators who argue that to be black is to be sub-Saharan African.
 * you said in my talk page that:
 * "her claim to be black is supported by almost every RS to comment on the matter"
 * Well what is she then??? Black or Black Briton? The RS say black, not black Briton, but you added black briton and not black. And both terms have lots of flaws in the arguments for them. As I see it, your way just doesn't work, and the subject is very objectively and accurately represented in the article. Also the comment about "Egyptians were referred to as "black" by the Greeks and Romans" is totally irrelevant. "Even in the United States, where blackness is firmly tied to sub-Saharan ancestry, I know of some North Africans who identify as black" - totally irrelevant, the use of "black" as every person with African origin is just wrong! They are African, not black, and getting black to mean African is complete nonsense. there is already a word for African, it AFRICAN. Also, you contradict your OWN claim to her blackness in your comment: "although they are of a much darker hue than Ms. Bouattia, and their claims have not gained mainstream attention or acceptance to this point" - Well then, so does Ms. Bouattia's! She has the same circumstances. She is North African, and claiming to be black. She just has more RS calling her black, ever though public opinion on this matter is clear even to you. Most people see black as sub-Saharan, I do too, and if you want to call her African or British-African or African-British that is an accurate representation and I am willing to settle on that, but calling someone black, who is not black in the view of most public opinion, is at best a hidden bias in favor of Malia, and at worst being a part of her campaign and publicity stunt to getting elected by being seen as black to get votes. I am not going to let Wikipedia be a campaign tool for an anti-Semite like her (or for anyone else for that matter). Please do not change anything that I did not said P am accepting until this thing is resolved. have a nice day. Phantom147 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Public and academic opinion in the United States, regarding the definition of "blackness" (a socially-constructed notion), differs from Great Britain. In the US the idea that North African=black is on the fringe (probably because of the relative paucity of North Africans in the population, combined with the history of slavery in the United States, which involved "black" Africans from sub-Saharan West and Central Africa). In Britain, there is a lot of precedent for the idea that North African=black, though it is debatable. Again, please read the black britons page.
 * This debate is peripheral to the bigger question: Should we describe Bouattia as black? The answer is yes, because most RS describe her as such, based on her Algerian heritage. (The inference that she is pretending to be sub-Saharan African is unsupported.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One more clarification: Our job is not to debate whether or not Bouattia is right to classify herself as black. Our job is to reflect the views of reliable sources. Here, we have a large majority of RS saying that she is black; and a small minority disagreeing. The article as it stands gives appropriate weight to both views. Removing "black" would be POV-pushing. Steeletrap (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point, you are simply edit warring for what you assert is "truth."  That is improper.  I find no sources stating that Algerians are commonly called "black" by the way. https://www.quora.com/What-race-is-an-Algerian    Collect (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We're talking past each other. I have never said that I believe Algerians are black; I have merely said that they fall within a definition of black that, while controversial, has mainstream support in the UK. "Truth" is not relevant on Wikipedia; what's relevant is what RS say. RS say she's black. That ends this issue (though we should cover the minority opinion that she isn't black). Steeletrap (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, I will keep reverting your edits until you stop. And i have ALL DAY LONG. This issue is under dispute. I called a moderator to handle you, because you are simply wrong on the issue and wrong in reverting my edits. I have answered every argument you've raised several times. But i will do it another time. You reverted my edit so that she is called "black British", where does RS say she is "Black British"??? Nowhere! You have no support for this, and you are wrong again. Also, your definition of Wikipedia: "Our job is to reflect the views of reliable sources" can you link a source to this? I think we should reflect what is true even if RS are false. Bring reference for that or stop claiming that. Also: "has mainstream support in the UK" - citation needed. "That ends this issue" - No it does not and you will be reported for edit warring. This is still under dispute, and will not be resolved until RFC or until you will accept the last settlement of this issue, because it was already settled! I am now forced to report you for edit warring. We will resolve this dispute there. good bye.Phantom147 (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The BBC article on her election explicitly and directly says she is the "first black Muslim woman president" of the NUS. Other sources use similar phrasing. Which sources dispute this claim, and why should we treat them with equal validity to a statement made in one of the most respected news outlets in the world? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Examination of reliable sources
I invite editors to present reliable sources here that discuss Malia Bouattia and her ethnic identity. This should allow us to properly examine due weight and equal validity issues. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * BBC 1 - "first black Muslim woman president"
 * BBC 2 - "the NUS's first black female Muslim leader"
 * The Guardian 1 - "Bouattia is the first black woman and first Muslim to be elected NUS president"
 * The Guardian 2 - "She becomes the union’s first black and first Muslim president."
 * The Economist - "the first black and first Muslim head of the organisation"
 * International Business Times - "The first black Muslim woman president"
 * The Independent - "the first black and minority ethnic (BME) woman to be elected into the role"
 * Haaretz - "the first black, female and secular Muslim as the head of the U.K.’s National Union of Students"
 * Times Higher Education - "the NUS’ first black female president"
 * New Statesman - "actually, Malia Bouattia isn’t really black" - this is quoted from an opinion column which must be phrased as the opinion of the writer, Charlie Brinkhurst-Cuff.

So far, we have six separate reliable news sources with eight articles describing her unambiguously as black, one reliable news source which describes her ambiguously as "black and minority ethnic" and one reliable opinion source which says she's not black, but which cannot be used except as the attributed opinion of the writer. Seems pretty clear to me how we we would weight this at this point. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If I may intervene, there's a small problem with that method. First of all, most of these sources are British, therefore instead of "Black British" for them it's just "Black". Second of all, there is a high chance that the other sources just copied the information from the first sources (I doubt the Israeli "Haaretz" reporters were actually there) therefore they're in the exact same bowl of "British Black" and "Black"... Bharel (talk) 21:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Moreover, even for the sources that aren't British but are rather global, the news reporters themselves are probably British, in which case... Oh the agony, why did we even start this discussion. Bharel (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because the article was in a position of rejecting the reliable sources and simultaneously denying/questioning the article subject's stated ethnic identity, based upon, it now appears, little more than a opinion column. If her ethnic identity is actually a question of substantial debate, we should find far more reliable sources than this which question it. If the only source contesting it is a single opinion columnist, that person's opinion may merit inclusion in this biography but it in no way should be given equal validity to what the overwhelming majority of reliable sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case, Black British should be the term describing her, not just Black as again, sources are British and she is not dark-skinned by any means. Nevertheless, there should be a section regarding the disputes. By the way, querying the sources is a rather funny but yet probable solution. Bharel (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A person's skin color does not solely define their ethnicity, as I'm sure you know; it's a matter of heritage and culture far more than the particular amount of melanin in a person's skin, given how variable that factor can be. Given that the article subject is British, I wouldn't object to a pipe-link to Black British in the lede to clarify for non-British folks how the use of the term may differ there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As an anthropologist, let me offer my two cents. The notion that North Africans are black (which indigenous North Africans are, according to the British census) is no more right or wrong than the notion that they're white (which they are, according to the US census). The truth--genetically speaking--is that they're mixed, and do not easily fit into binary white-black frame. To put it more crassly, are many people with genetic profiles identical to Bouattia who 'look black.' Gamal Abdel Nasser was of North African ancestry, but would be considered "black" to many Americans based on his physical appearance.
 * The main complication to her racial identification as black, which has prompted a lot of twitter trolling and one RS criticizing her racial identity, is that she--unlike most North Africans--is fair-skinned, though still visibly a person of color. This does complicate her identification at an intellectual level, and I doubt she'd be getting the same level of flack if she were a North African of a darker hue. Nonetheless, she is black within a mainstream textual definition of black in the UK, and black according to RS. That settles this question.
 * One thing that troubles me is the constant references to Rachel Dolezal on this talk page. That is a smear. At most, Bouattia could be criticized for adopting a racial identity that, while technically correct under UK law and precedent, is not commensurate with how she is perceived. That is not the same as lying about your ancestry, as Dolezal did. Steeletrap (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm checking out, but I hope y'all can get this issue resolved.
 * I personally believe a full link (rather than a pipe-link stating just "Black") is the ideal solution, as it is both more accurate according to the term "Black British" and it is far less ambiguous than just a random "Black" (setting aside the fact that the term "Black British" is ambiguous by itself). The reason she's just "Black" according to RS is the fact that the RS are British, in which case the terminology differs. As stated by others, in the US (and many other parts of the world, after all "Black British" is... well... British) she probably wouldn't be classified as Black at all. Keep in mind melanin concentration does play a role in here. The fact of her being black would definitely be undisputed if she was this black. Bharel (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The RSes are British because the subject is British, and we don't write the encyclopedia through a US lens. Moreover, using a non-piped link in the phrase in question would result in extremely awkward wording - "She is the first Black British Muslim head of the NUS" is ambiguous and reads poorly. We already use the complete wording two sentences later. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "She is the first Black British and first Muslim head of the NUS" is what the original wording was. I think it's better to call her Black British than just black, not only in the US does black mean sub-Saharan. I don't have a full list but I think it will be more understandable that way for most people around the world, and British people wont have a problem understanding it either. Phantom147 (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. I am fine with that wording. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Glad you came around, PHantom. Steeletrap (talk)

2+2 =/= 3 just because it's been published by a 'reliable source'. use your heads. there is a reason we still have human editors on wiki, not just bots. BelAirRuse (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are how we write Wikipedia — everything published on the encyclopedia must be sourced to a reliable source so that it can be verified independently. The above-referenced reliable sources are unequivocal on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * you're not getting it, just because it;s USUALLY a reliable source it doesn't mean the source is always without fault. as it is in this case. BelAirRuse (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, and who says the sources are faulty in this case? If you're arguing the sources are wrong, it's incumbent upon you to present reliable sources in support of your argument. Otherwise you're just arguing your own personal opinion, and on Wikipedia, your personal opinion is not relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * common sense does. a person of middle eastern ethnicity is not black. that's universally accepted and you as an educated individual know this. BelAirRuse (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works in Britain, as the Black British article helpfully explains. What you believe to be "common sense" doesn't have any relevance to the encyclopedia; we write articles based upon reliable sources, not someone's personal interpretation of "common sense." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

From the page: ''The term "black" has historically had a number of applications as a racial and political label, and may be used in a wider sociopolitical context to encompass a broader range of non-European ethnic minority populations in Britain. This is a controversial definition. "Black British" is one of various self-designation entries used in official UK ethnicity classifications.''

I'm obviously not the only one who thinks this, otherwise it wouldn't be controversial. BelAirRuse (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Either present reliable sources on the level of those above, which contradict or dispute the identification, or it's time to drop the stick. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bel Air, why is it common sense that North Africans are not black? Genetically they are in between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa; thus many 'look white' but many others--often within the same family--resemble sub-Saharan Africans. Visit Cairo and you will find a group of people whose race does not easily fit into the white-black binary. Some could 'pass' for Italians while others could 'pass' as Sudanese. Given the genetic diversity of North Africans, such phenotypic diversity is hardly surprising.
 * The wiki entry for black people may be instructive; in many societies throughout history, going back to ancient times, North Africans have been deemed black. Calling them black is no more or less right than calling them white (as the US Census does).
 * In any case, it's clear from RS that Bouattia's claim to be black is generally accepted in Britain. There is some dissent on this point, but we cover it in the article. Whether she would be deemed black in the US is irrelevant. Steeletrap (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

ethnic Algerians(arabs) aren't black. neither are ethnic Egyptians. i haven't been to Cairo(yet) but I've been to Giza and haven't seen any of those racially ambiguous people you seem to have trouble categorizing. but neither of these points matter since Malia Bouattia is obviously not black. she's the north africa/middle eastern Rachel Dolezal BelAirRuse (talk) 02:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not a forum for expressing your personal opinions about the subject of the article, and you need to stop casting aspersions about Bouattia. If you don't have any reliable sources to support your proposed changes, it's time to move on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * while you're at it, why not correct the fact that Fredrik Reinfeldt was the first black head of state of Sweden and Mandela wasn't the first black president of south africa, De Klerk was? BelAirRuse (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Birth date
I have just added a RS for birth date and middle name. As her birth was registered at the same time in Norfolk it seems to me highly likely that she was born in Norfolk after her family moved here. This throws into doubt her story of an education in Algeria and sheltering under her desk in school while bullets flew which is a better story than being born in Norfolk, England. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, no, and I've reverted per WP:BLPPRIMARY; specifically Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. The "birth date" listed there is contradicted by a wide array of other reliable sources, which state that she was raised in Algeria and only registered in Britain once her family emigrated. Your personal interpretation of an ambiguous primary source is not sufficient to reject those other reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Times also say October 1987. What is ambiguous about it. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please quote and cite the source which says she was born on that date. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Four statutory company filings for Companies House prepared by the NUS. I acknowledge BLP primary but we can also use a bit of common sense. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We have no way of knowing or interpreting those filings, and that's why we avoid using primary sources for BLPs. The source provides a date, it does not confirm that she was born in Norfolk on that date. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As per The Guardian, Until the age of seven, she had a blissfully happy childhood in Algeria, but in the civil war academics became targets for abduction and murder, and the family fled to Birmingham. Unless you are suggesting she was born in Norfolk and then moved to Algeria? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's a high quality source which states she was born in Algeria. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They are quoting her own speech "She was born in Algeria and came to the UK at age seven after “terrorists rained gunfire” on her school, Bouattia said in her election speech." Philafrenzy (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That analysis is not for you to make - the source states it as a fact, not as an opinion. No reliable source claims otherwise. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They are quoting her, not giving their opinion. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the wording is not a quote of Bouattia and it is stated in the source's voice, not her's. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bouattia said in her election speech" - she is the source. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not following you. They're not citing it as her opinion, they're stating it as an undisputed fact. You may not create implications of doubt where none exist in the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would like it stated another way, here you go. As The Algemeiner previously reported, the Algerian-born Bouattia first attracted controversy when she was running for the NUS leadership position... [[User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof] (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Companies House records state "Date of birth October 1987". It is an offence to file false information on such statutory filings. Are you suggesting the NUS have deliberately lied about her age? If she was 7 when she arrived in the UK in October 1987, that would make her about 36 now. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "suggesting" anything. I'm stating that you have cited not a single reliable source which claims she was born in Norfolk, England. Your troubles "analyzing" ambiguous public records data exemplify exactly why we do not use public records in Wikipedia biographies. We are not here to conduct analysis of primary sources, we are here to report what reliable secondary sources have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have to analyse Companies House records that state "Date of birth October 1987" sourced directly to the NUS. That was already in the article and you removed it without consensus. This isn't that controversial. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not object to adding the year and month of birth in the lede. I would certainly object to any language which suggests she was "born in Norfolk" because we have no reliable source which says that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please reinstate the month and year of birth that was previously in the article before you removed it. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

This settles it - a direct statement from The Times - Ms Bouattia was born in Algeria but grew up in Birmingham. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Zionist outpost" article.
A link to the original article containing the statement about the University of Birmingham being "something of a Zionist outpost in British Higher Education": The London School of Emancipation blogspot - Daniel Lindley, Malia Bouattia (University of Birmingham Friends of Palestine) - University of Birmingham & Israeli Apartheid Week: Mock Israeli Checkpoint, 28 March 2011.    ←   ZScarpia  16:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Al Jazeera investigation on the Israel Lobby in the UK
This edit removed a description of the Al Jazeera series on the Israel lobby in the UK as "a filmed documentary series on the Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom". The comment left was "questionable notability in itself". If that was intended to explain the removal, I find it uninterpretable. Links to each episode in the series are given here. As can be seen, there are four episodes and therefore to call the series 'a series' isn't really unfactual. Also, the title of the series is "The Lobby" and, given that the Lobby referred to is the Israel Lobby in the UK, it isn't really unfactual to describe it as being about the Israel Lobby in the United Kingdom. Beyond that, I don't understand what the problem might be.    ←   ZScarpia  22:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a contentious series at the time and really needs supporting third-party sources to establish its credibility, as well as notability. That Malia Bouattia made assertions about Jews which are questionable is not doubted by multiple reliable sources. This programme presented a "conspiracy theory" connected with Bouattia, which is clearly a nonsense, and so is the one trying to explain why it was ignored by other media outlets. The letter signed by Norman Finkelstein and Moshé Machover, among others, printed by The Independent just about counts as RS, and so should probably remain. Philip Cross (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is an unreliable source. Your vocal disagreement with the source's contents notwithstanding, I don't see any grounds to remove it. Bouattia no doubt would disagree with the conclusions of several of the sources cited in this article, but we don't remove them on those grounds either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Birth
"Bouattia was born in Norwich, and her birth was registered in Norfolk after emigrating." This doesn't make sense. Norwich is in Norfolk. If we are now agreed that she was born in Norwich she couldn't have emigrated to Norfolk. Shouldn't it just be "Bouattia was born in Norwich, Norfolk"? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)