Talk:Mende Nazer

Withdrawn AFD
This article's 86.162.32.187 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Mende Nazer

--86.162.32.187 (talk) 11:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC) sophie taylor used this for her homework |AFD nomination]] was withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

POV point: Alleged slavery
I am the person who requested a POV check on the page. Mende Nazer is, as far as I know, an alleged slave. And the page was written as such. (I am the one who wrote the alleged adjective in the first place). She has published her book containing the said allegations, and has applied for asylum in the UK based on that. The story was disputed by ESPAC. Somebody (anonymous) deleted the references to ESPAC on the basis that it is a prorpaganda site that absolves the Sudanese government and deny the existence of Slavery in Sudan. No proof that ESPAC is a deceitful site is mentioned.

More imporantly, the British Home Office rejected her asylum request on the basis of her story, before granting asylum on the basis of risks resulting from her publishing and high profile case. A newspaper had to retract the story and pay damages after facing charges related to her publishing of the alleged story. Both are explained in the page. If that is not enough for the story to be at least considered as disputed, I don't know what is. Karouri 12:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * When I get time, I will go through a Lexis/Nexis news search and add citations and quotes. The February 21, 2004 U.S. edition of The Economist says, "When she first came to Khartoum...[s]he was 12, and about to be sold as a house slave, after being kidnapped during a raid on her village," and "In her late teens, she was shipped to her owner's sister and her diplomat husband in London, and continued her life as a slave. Helped by a fellow Sudanese, she escaped." Clearly citations to reliable sources with independent editorial oversight and a solid reputation for fact-checking are what we need, along with quotations in context. Tom Harrison Talk 13:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Article in the Daily Telegraph referred to above was written by a journalist who had never even met Nazer, who had written without her permission, and which had serious inconsitencies in it's representation of her story- it was not therefore "her story", but hearsay about her story. Clearly the Telegraph could not defend such an article in court. As a result, the Telegraph decided to settle the dispute out of court. In discussion of the Nazer case it is important to remember that The Telegraph article and the legal case surrounding it does not therefore effect the integrity of Nazer's story. LARGO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.36.40 (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This was definitely informative and helpful. The problem now is that the only source of her story is her interviews and book. With the story of the Telegraph invalidated and the Home Office case based on the consequences of the book, there is no independent verification. Especially after the first rejection from the Home Office. As the story is rejected by the Sudanese, I still say it is disputed. --Karouri (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The first line calls her 'British' but she's NOT, the whole thing is about Sudan and no claim is made to British Citizenship...
This comment is not meant to be political so much as a representation of the reality of the words and concepts referred-to in the article. Being 'British' is not simply 'living in Britain', no matter how long for. As much as, post New Labour, many might like that modern definition... This article has been rated as less trustworthy or objective than average as a result of this apparent bias towards the subjects wish to remain in the UK / legal case / general line of argument.

Objectively, the subject is still 'merely' a holder of Sudanese citizenship, with Indefinite Leave To Remain in the UK, correct? If not, this is the information I have gotten from the article, so the article is poor in this regard and thus stating the subject is 'British' as a priority is suspicious. Also, if the rest of the article / talk is going to refer to 'fellow Sudanese' this obviously conflicts with 'British' as a description. One cannot truly be both, and legally not without caveats, and 'British' is considered more than a shallow political label, at least to many born in the UK, I believe. I wouldn't claim to be Sudanese just because I had a long visa and lived there for some years, for example. So this could either be written more objectively, and/or the supporting detail added. GrooveManeuver (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mende Nazer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100426000334/http://www.ncadc.org.uk:80/archives/filed%20newszines/oldnewszines/Old%201-50/news28/mendenazer.html to http://www.ncadc.org.uk/archives/filed%20newszines/oldnewszines/Old%201-50/news28/mendenazer.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)