Talk:Shamima Begum

Reference 8
ref 8 has nothing to do with this article. w umbolo  ^^^  20:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks. This was inherited from the original article I moved this over from, I guess. There was a second weird ref. Fixed both. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 20:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Citizenship
As far as I can tell Britain has not yet revoked her citizenship. So, until her citizenship is revoked she is still a UK citizen. If it has been revoked please add a reliable source.showing that it has been revoked (not just that the revocation is possible, or planned, or approved of). As for whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen, I don't see how the UK's opinion that she is, or should be eligible to be so, has anything to do with it. If Bangladesh does not consider her to be a citizen then she is not. I don't think that saying she has "disputed" Bangladeshi citizenship is correct. Meters (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Your first two sentences are absolutely correct. She is still a British citizen.  I told you in my last edit that I agreed with you on this point - and I accordingly did not revert you on that point.  Thus, I think we can park that issue.


 * As for the Bangladesh issue, the analysis is very simple:


 * The UK government says she is a Bangladeshi citizen. The Bangladeshi government says she is not.  Who is right - we have no idea.  Clearly, for the reasons I told you in my edit, the fact that the Bangladeshi government says she is not a Bangladeshi citizen does not necessarily mean that that is actually right.  What governments say does not determine reality.


 * Thus, this page should say that there is a disputed claim that she is a Bangladeshi citizen, since that best reflects objective reality. Once the matter is adjudicated by the courts (as I'm sure it will) we will then know the true picture and can update accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.123.50 (talk • contribs) 00:45, February 24, 2019 86. (UTC)


 * Please sign and indent your posts.
 * The UK does not get to determine who is a citizen of other countries, any more than other countries get to dictate to the UK who the UK's citizens are. The UK may think (possibly even correctly) that the person has a valid legal claim to citizenship in some other country, but that does not make her a citizen of that country. You put your  disputed Bangladeshi citizen claim in and it was challenged by being undone. You should have raised it on the talk page rather than restoring it. It stays out unless there is consensus here to add it.  Meters (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the UK does not determine other citizenships. Given that the official line of the Bangladeshi government seems to be that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, this should be treated as fact. What "legal experts" or other commentators think is irrelevant really. It would make an interesting section "Citizenship controversy" where all the views are outlined, but it would not be sufficient for calling her "Bangladeshi citizen".
 * Following a similar line of thought, I do disagree that it is correct to call her "British citizen". There are plenty of recent sources that firmly state that her UK citizenship has been revoked., , . Of course, we can read a lot between the lines. We don't know if the letter by the Home Office said "effective such and such a date" or "pending review" or whatever. This source shows the letter which clearly shows the removal order effective 19 Feb. Media reports over the last days seem to unanimously use phrases along the line of "who HAD her citizenship revoked". We have to go by what reliable sources say. Again, if "legal experts" talk about the illegality of making someone stateless, this is all a matter of opinion and makes for great debate until a UK court reverses the Home Office's decision and turns opinions into legal fact. I therefore propose that citizenship should be removed from the infobox or replaced with something like "unknown", "unclear", "disputed". Given how unclear the situation is, this is probably the statement that has the highest probability of being NPOV and reflective of sources. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * @Meters, your first two sentences miss the point. I did not argue that the UK gets to determine who is or is not a citizen of Bangladesh.  It clearly does not.  You appear to be behaving as if I had argued we should positively state that she is a Bangladeshi citizen, adopting the UK's claim uncritically.  That straw-man you then knock down superbly.


 * My actual argument is far simpler. The claim has been made that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.  Bangladesh disputes it.  We have no idea who is actually right.  This page (in my opinion) should thus say that there is a disputed claim that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.  Against that argument, you have, with respect, offered no real response at all.  In the alternative, if that argument is not accepted, I think Jake Brockman's suggestion that the page just state that citizenship is "unknown" or "disputed" is sensible and reasonable.  In any event, the page absolutely should not say what it currently says - that she is "stateless".


 * Finally Meters, your final two sentences are an argumentative and irrelevant distraction from the subject being discussed. I'm happy to admit that I'm not familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and I may have inadvertently acted incorrectly.  If I have, I apologise.  However, I think it's fairly obvious to any fair-minded reasonable observer that I am not seeking to be 'unconstructive' (as you wrongly alleged on my wall).  So please cut out the personal attacks and stick to the issues.


 * Also, it would have been helpful if, instead of ordering me to 'sign and indent', you had actually explained how to do that. I think I've now worked it out, but it would have been a lot quicker if you'd just been constructive and explained.86.151.123.50 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Including in this discussion given he is the last editor. I am not entirely sure if she should be called "stateless". Her current citizenship status is very much a matter of political discussion that will undoubtedly play out in various courts over time. The UK government appears to believe she has Bangladeshi citizenship, otherwise they would not have been able to revoke her UK citizenship. If she still is a UK citizen, a Bangladeshi citizen or stateless is pretty much a matter of legal philosophy right now. There are many opinions floating around. Facts are: Bangladesh claims she is not a citizen, the UK claims she is and therefore the UK can revoke her citizenship. The claim she is stateless is - IMO - WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and very much a matter of opinion. As I stated above, the citizenship line in the infobox should clearly state that this is "unclear" or "unknown" at the moment. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A citation was asked for. I have provided one, to a reliable source, with a quotation ("Shamima Begum - the schoolgirl who fled London to join the Islamic State group in Syria - has been stripped of her UK citizenship after expressing a desire to return.").  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And I have now added another citation, with a quote: "Shamima Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen and cannot enter the country, its government has said, meaning the UK has made her stateless.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this . That's a snappy sub-headline the Independent uses. It seems they make this assumption based on a claim by the Begum family lawyer (that's the only other time when statelessness is mentioned in this article). So I'd categorise this in the land of legal opinion and posturing. Taking this one step further In this article "expert lawyers" say she is indeed a Bangladesh citizen. So maybe the Bangladesh government is wrong?! And the UK one?! This is an absolute mess and WP should not make statements as factual if the sources are literally all over the place. This constant back-and-forth in the infobox pretty much proves that point... pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And despite this you have now added statements to the article which are not supported by citations. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is not a helpful contribution if you do not particularise the precise statements that you say are not supported by citations. I've looked at Jake Brockman's statements and with one minor exception, I think they're all fine.  Reviewing in detail, here's what he said:


 * "There have been reports that immigration lawyers confirm this position" - clearly true. The provided BBC source says, ''"Lawyers have told the BBC that under Bangladesh law, a UK national born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen - a dual national..."

''
 * "It has been reported that international law does not allow that an individual is made stateless. Begum will have the right to appeal the Home Office's decision to revoke her UK citizenship." - also clearly true. The same BBC source says, "Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, a person can be deprived of their citizenship if the home secretary is satisfied it would be "conducive to the public good" and they would not become stateless as a result.  Ms Begum has the right to challenge the Home Office's decision either by tribunal or judicial review, said former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile..."


 * "Stateless (presumed, see article; from February 2019)" - here is my minor quibble.  I would prefer the word "disputed" rather than "presumed" as this really depends on whether Begum has Bangladeshi citizenship, and we have no way of knowing whether the UK government or the Bangladeshi government is right on that one.

.
 * So that one minor quibble aside, I think Jake Brockman's statements are entirely fair and supported by the sources. It is slightly depressing that you simply dismissed his argument with that inaccurate assertion rather than actually address the substance of it (which largely mirrors my own position set out above).5.83.102.18 (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should probably confirm that I am 86.151.123.50. I'm at a different location tonight - hence the different IP address.5.83.102.18 (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Citizenship redux

, I am going to strongly agree that the wikipedia should not baldly state Begum is stateless, in the lead, or in the infobox. Rendering citizen's stateless is extraordinary. Maybe unprecedented for Begum and American Hoda Muthana.

We need to remember that the UK, and the USA, have three branches of Government. Both have a Judicial Branch. Attempts to strip these women of UK and US citizenship are being challenged before their Judicial Branches. So, they are not unambiguously stateless yet.

I don't have a concern with coverage that details how the Executive Branches of their countries initiated the process of trying to strip them of citizenship. I don't have a concern with coverage that quotes whichever legal experts assert this is possible -- provided it is balanced by experts who assert it is a breach of International agreements the UK and US signed.

Meanwhile, what should the lead say? What should the infobox say? I suggest that the citizenship field of the infobox could just say "disputed". And the lead, instead of saying "citizen of the UK/US", it could say "born in the UK/US".

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You can agree as strongly as you like. That's utterly irrelevant. What matters is what reliable sources say. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , okay, since you agree that we cover what verifiable authoritative sources say, and verifiable authoritative sources either don't agree or state that her citizenship status is disputed, then that is what we should say, that her citizenship status is disputed. To pick either side, is a lapse from neutrality.


 * You do realize her citizenship status is disputed, don't you? Geo Swan (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a debate as to her citizenship status. The current wording in the infobox, I agree with, may be misleading in how it summarises the situation. On the other hand, just saying "disputed" seems too minimal.
 * What about saying "UK &/or Bangladesh or stateless, disputed"? Something like that. Without dates. Gives the minimum we can agree on (it's one or more of those three), without getting into areas of dispute? That can be covered in the text. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the sources are pretty clear and support what is in the infobox, including the dates. Wikipedia editors are not WP:!TRUTHFINDERS. Something like the proposed seems even less clear and somewhat convoluted. I may be comfortable with just saying "status unclear" or something to that effect. However, when readers then go back to the article, they will learn that a) she had UK citizenship at some point, which was revoked, b) there is some debate on whether or not she has Bangladesh citizenship and c) that she may currently be stateless. The infobox does not say more or less right now. Infoboxes are summaries - and a summary it is. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the lead section and infobox to say disputed, or reasonable equivalent. With regard to WP:!TRUTHFINDERS... aren't there plenty of references that point out that both the UK and the USA are signatories to international agreements that explicitly bar trying to render individuals stateless?  This is not a fringe opinion, and, IMO, it bars any assertion that Shamima Begum, Hoda Muthana, or Zehra Duman (an Autralian born woman who it is suggested should be stripped of her citizenship) are unequivocally stateless.  I have no problem having a long detailed discussion of the complications of her citizenship status, in a section for that purpose.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have an article on the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness? If not we should.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is an example... This RS says:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * ''Article 8 of the 1961 Statelessness Convention, however, does allow deprivation of nationality even if it leads to statelessness in certain circumstances. These circumstances are limited to to where the person has:
 * ''Article 8 of the 1961 Statelessness Convention, however, does allow deprivation of nationality even if it leads to statelessness in certain circumstances. These circumstances are limited to to where the person has:


 * ''voluntarily acquired another nationality;
 * ''committed fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the nationality;
 * ''performed services to a foreign government or military in contravention of an express prohibition;
 * ''been absent for 7 years or more under very strict conditions; or
 * ''engaged in conduct ‘prejudicial to the vital interest of the State’.


 * ''However, each of these exceptions is subject to the right to a fair hearing by a court of other independent body.


 * }
 * As I said above, the existence of multiple RS making this or similar points bars us from unequivocally asserting any of these women has been stripped of citizenship. Geo Swan (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We need reliable sources saying that Begum's situation is disputed. We cannot, as per WP:OR, try to interpret how something might apply. A reliable source on the background cannot serve here. We have to follow what reliable sources say about Begum, and only what reliable sources say about Begum. Bondegezou (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several sources that consider this a dispute. "The Home Office reportedly believed that Begum was entitled to claim citizenship in Bangladesh — a claim disputed by the South Asian country."(The Australian). "Bangladesh says IS teen Shamima Begum not their citizen in dispute with UK government" (Sky News). pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good. So RS agree she was a UK citizen. We have sufficient RS to say that it is in dispute whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen. We also, I believe, have sufficient RS to say that it is in dispute whether she is now stateless. But do we have RS saying it is in dispute whether she is still a UK citizen? That's what argues, perhaps correctly but it's WP:OR unless we have an RS or two saying the same thing. Bondegezou (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There are many sources (linked in the article), but I keep coming back to this one that says she "has been stripped off her (UK) citizenship". Effectively, the Home Office has served notice and informed her she has routes to appeal. As with any legal process, such as indictments, the status stands unless the person appeals. implies, I believe, she has not lost her UK citizenship until all legal avenues have been fully explored and a judgement by the final instance of appeal has been made. In practice, we just don't know which avenues of appeal she will take and what the outcome will be. So until a higher instance rules otherwise, the Home Office decision stands. There is no ruling from higher instances as yet. Opinions as to whether the HO has broken laws is secondary UNTIL there is judgement on this. I don't want to belittle the issue. But when I get a speeding ticket, the points are on my record as long as the government agency thinks they are right. They only get deleted once I successfully appealed. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 22:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Merge
Isn't this article Shamima Begum and Sharmeena Begum the same person. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * there has been a lot of confusion about this. Sharmeema and Shamima both lived in the same part of London and went to the same school. They are not related though (just share the same last name). Sharmeema left for Syria about 2 months before Shamima and her friends did. Two different people. This article provides a good summary about both. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Status in Syria
The article doesn't say why Begum is in a refugee camp rather than a prison/detention centre. By what reasoning is she being treated as a refugee in Syria, rather than a suspect/criminal? Is she free to leave the camp? Jim Michael (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Short version: (1) Their captors are not a sovereign country, so there is no body of laws under which they could be charged, or tried; (2) Even if they were being held by a sovereign country, for most of these individuals there is no evidence that would hold up during a fair trial.
 * long version: I drafted a long version, but decided it might be seen as a lapse from WP:NOTAFORUM.  Email me if you want to read it.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism
I can't believe that extremely slanderous, unverified content was allowed to stay up for an hour. This is currently a hotly trending topic in the UK, and anyone can log back into an account they haven't used for years and edit it because they've got autoconfirmed. Please keep an eye on this page. Naihreloe (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye on this, . I have this on my watch list, but I have also got work to do... I have warned the editor. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I asked page protection but these ips create new accounts. Shadow4dark (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it looks more like 10 minutes than an hour. --SVTCobra 13:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
Owing to recent contributions from a new account, we have this: Three weeks before she was married in Raqqa, Begum with her friends, were put into a man's house because as they found out later, "...They suspected.

They suspected what? I can't access the source, so I can't read the article cited in order to complete the sentence. Can anyone else?

I've already contacted the new editor about what they intended, but so far no response.

Thanks, --Mondo Beer (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship in Infobox
Citizenship in the Infobox says "Stateless" despite the UK government's position being that she is a Bangladesh national and the law of Bangladesh saying the same, despite the Bangladesh government's position on the matter. There has been a prior discussion on this under "Citizenship" where there has been a consensus reached that her citizenship is disputed, I'm not clear why it's been changed to state outright that she's stateless. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * i agree disputed is best for this as per consensus above. It was added without discussion back. Shadow4dark (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Should "Disputed" run from 2019 to present? The UK government's position is that she was a Bangladesh citizen all along, Bangladesh's position is that she has never been a citizen.  Although the dispute only arose in 2019 it covers her entire life.
 * I also wonder if rather than simply "disputed" it should read should read "Bangaldeshi - disputed, see citizenship". Maybe a third one saying "Stateless (2019-present) - disputed, see citizenship".  As it is it could read as though her British citizenship is a matter of dispute. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also wonder if rather than simply "disputed" it should read should read "Bangaldeshi - disputed, see citizenship". Maybe a third one saying "Stateless (2019-present) - disputed, see citizenship".  As it is it could read as though her British citizenship is a matter of dispute. Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Citizenship section on infobox
At present, the citizenship section of the infobox states "Bangladesh (disputed, see citizenship)". This is a serious error. The Bangladesh government decides who its citizens are and they have made clear she is not a citizen of Bangladesh. She is over 21 and has made no attempts to apply for Bangladeshi nationality so she cannot be characterised as a Bangladeshi citizen. I attached a source from an expert on Bangladeshi law which supported the claim she is not a citizen. What is a matter of dispute is whether or not she is stateless, as a result the infobox should be amended to omit "Bangladesh" and insert "stateless". This is the matter of dispute.-AMomen88 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * İ agree with this, it support both viewpoints and not just one British viewpoint. Shadow4dark (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that there are credible sources to support the claim that Begum does not have Bangladeshi citizenship. AMomen88 has provided such a source.  However, there are also credible sources that support the claim that she does.  Those sources are in the main body of the article.  Wikipedia is not a court and it is not for us to adjudicate on the matter.


 * So I think it's clear that the info box should say that Begum's citizenship is disputed. The issue, I think, is whether it says "Bangladesh" or "stateless" before disputed.  On reflection, I think it should say neither.  Rather, it should just say "(disputed, see citizenship)".  I don't think it should lead with either 'Bangladesh' or 'stateless'.  To use Shadow4dark's terminology, the former gives prominence to the British viewpoint; the other gives prominence to the Bangladeshi viewpoint.  Let's just stay neutral and not give prominence to either.Telanian7790 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And in that respect, she should not appear in Category:Stateless people, as to place her there is non-NPOV. Stifle (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that inserting "stateless" would give prevalence to the Bangladeshi viewpoint, the Bangladeshi government contends she is not a Bangladeshi citizen, that does not mean by default the government believes she is stateless. However, your compromise of having neither "Bangladesh" nor "stateless" seems sensible.—AMomen88 (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The compromise is fair, but I'm concerned that the current infobox gives the impression that her British citizenship is a matter of dispute when it isn't. What's in dispute is whether she's stateless or a citizen of Bangladesh.  Considering it's the main reason for her notoriety and subject to several court cases maybe this issue is too complex to properly present in an infobox with a couple of words.  Maybe it should just be taken out altogether, or replaced with "disputed - see citizenship". Rambo Apocalypse (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this viewpoint: "The Bangladesh government decides who its citizens are and they have made clear she is not a citizen of Bangladesh."
 * '''Citizenship to a sovereign nation can only be conferred by that nation.
 * The people in here who think the UK can somehow confer Bangladeshi citizenship or force Bangladesh to give someone citizenship have lost all perspective. Justpasding (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The people in here who think the UK can somehow confer Bangladeshi citizenship or force Bangladesh to give someone citizenship have lost all perspective. Justpasding (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Location in Syria is important
A couple of times people have removed this information from the Lead. It is highly relevant to Begum's notability.

As a non-British person I first came to this page trying to work out which nation she is actually located in, I think it's important to include this fact, given the seeming controversy about whether she holds a citizenship. Justpasding (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * See MOS:CONTEXTBIO and the third paragraph already covered it sufficient. Shadow4dark (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)