Talk:Sharmeena Begum

What caused her to go?
all those underneath:
 * 1) personal character
 * 2) arbitrariness of human nature (watch: a. The Royal Institution, b. Gresham College, c. uctv all on YouTube)
 * 3) bad friends

We cannot annihilate the percentage of arbitrariness/randomness of the human conduct.


 * If free will is the innate biological systemic noise, then there is no free will.
 * If free will is our genes then there is no free will.
 * If free will is our limited and not infinite environment then there is no free will.
 * If free will is biochemistry then there is no free will.

Free will is an explosion in the name of the supposedly Universal personhood; the god/allah. Free will is a misconception. Psychologically it's beneficial to believe in free will according to statistical data. Psychologically it's not beneficial to be physically harmed by terrorists according to statistical data (the majority of the victims feel bad and that is measurable and quantifiable). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4118:DA00:5584:67A3:6753:D00C (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

She got gaslit by a terrorist program designed to harvest brides for the allah partriarchy. Seems like an open and shut case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.195.236 (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Oops, seems like I did an oopsie
A few minutes ago I moved this page from "Shameena Begum (Shamina Begum)" to "Shamina Begum", thinking that this must be her real name. However, I'm ignorant of the fact that her real name might be "Shamima Begum" (BBC News, The Guardian). And I can't really fix this myself since Shamima Begum exists and is actually a redirect to this article (hmm...) Since I'm just a passerby (I came across this article because the news is talking about it) I hope someone might be able to verify her real name and to make necessary adjustments. Thank you. Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm in the process of correcting this. There are two separate people - this one, Sharmeena Begum, left the UK in December 2014. The news developments in the last week don't refer to her. They refer to Shamima Begum, who left the UK in Jan 2015 and whose mother is still alive (per cited source). She doesn't have her own article but is part of a joint article with the two teenagers who left at the same time as her. I will make adjustments necessary. 2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think I've corrected everything in the body of the article, but my account isn't confirmed so I can't move the page. My view would be that this article should go to "Sharmeena Begum". "Shamima Begum" should redirect to Amira Abase, Shamima Begum and Kadiza Sultana. I'm about to list this on WP:Requested moves. 2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

READ BEFORE UPDATING: Mistaken identity
This article is about Shamina or Sharmeena Begum, who left the UK in December 2014 and (as the article explains) whose mother died. News developments in February 2019 relate to ShamiMa Begum, who left the UK with two others in January 2015 and whose mother is still alive (and being referred to in press coverage.)

It's very unlikely that any news sources in February 2019 discussing a girl from the UK who travelled to join ISIS are about the subject of this article. Please triple check. I am 80% of the way through correcting recent edits that involved this mistake. 2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Mega confusion: Sharmeena Begum and Shamima Begum are two different women!
I m new here so have no idea how to go about untangling this mess, but careful attention to detail and sources show that Shamima who was one of the "Bethnal Green three" and who has now been stripped of her UK citizenship after giving birth in a Syrian refugee camp is simply not the same person as Sharmeema Begum.

"The three girls had joined another London teenager, Sharmeena Begum, in Syria."

Others are editing this page as I type and are in fact replacing Sharmeena's story with Shamima's. The page originally said that the three girls followed Sharmmena Begum - who shared Shamima's surname but was no relation her,after she went to Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calatonia (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes - per previous entry on this page. If your account has been confirmed, I think it'd be extremely helpful to move this page to "Sharmeena Begum" to avoid confusion from the similar spelling. I've also requested this page be temporarily semi-protected in the meantime... 2A02:C7D:5E53:2500:F00E:CE51:5723:F363 (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it wasn't me who made the erroneous edit but the person who admitted to making an "oopsie" up-page.... I was trying to find out how to get the page "frozen" so someone more competent could put it back to how it was (because otherwise Sharmeena disappears) and then start a new page for the woman who is in the news at the moment (Shamima) as she probably needs a page in her own right now, rather than just being one of the three girls named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calatonia (talk • contribs) 20:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Can this entry be corrected please?
- or opened back up to editing so i can keep trying!! There seems to be a real confusion between Sharmeema and Shamima (same surname) who both left the UK to go to Syria. This entry started about Sharmeema who was the first to leave the UK but several people keep changing it to Shamima who is currently in the UK press and left for Syria a few months after Sharmeema. I have been trying to change back (as well as removing vandalism) but couldn’t keep up! LouLouDog (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's being fixed now. Dloh cier ekim   (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like everything has been sorted at last, although this article should probably be locked for a while to stop any other over-enthusiastic would-be updaters messing it all up again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calatonia (talk • contribs) 21:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I reverted a huge informationectomy
performed an article-ectomy with the edit summary "copyvio blanking, foundational copy-paste from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2994085/She-loved-Rihanna-clothes-make-fell-spell-Islamists-British-schoolgirl-15-fled-join-ISIS.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11472196/Girl-15-fled-to-Islamic-State-after-mother-died-from-cancer.html http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-14/father-of-first-girl-who-fled-to-syria-warned-police-to-watch-three-friends/ etc"

I didn't check to see if their assertion it was a copyvio was meaningful. Rather I did a diff from the article's second revision to the last revision I made. I knew I added brand new copy, and it seemed other contributors had too. So, this version only contains material added since the first edit that JLAN asserted were a copyvio. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I created a copyvio free version under Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp as per process. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 19:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Jake Brockman, do you want to upload your version to the main page. The current one has a 40% copyright problem. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)).
 * , thanks for the heads-up. I reverted my edit.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now moved 's viable rewrite into the place of the previous content. The version proposed by was also viable, I believe; however, Geo Swan, the message Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent written in large type across the blanking template should be a hint that yours was not the preferred approach. Anyone is now free to edit and improve the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * JLAN, you are completely correct I overlooked that warning, until Jake Brockman drew it to my attention. I did self-revert, after seeing his warning.  Geo Swan (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage.)&#32;Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2994085/She-loved-Rihanna-clothes-make-fell-spell-Islamists-British-schoolgirl-15-fled-join-ISIS.html, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11472196/Girl-15-fled-to-Islamic-State-after-mother-died-from-cancer.html and http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-14/father-of-first-girl-who-fled-to-syria-warned-police-to-watch-three-friends/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I saw that you obfuscated, rendered unreadable, all edits prior to your placement of the copyvio notice.


 * Aren't mundane copyright violations, noticed shortly after they are made, and promptly reverted, simply left in the contribution history?


 * Prior to the history obfuscation, I did a diff, from the first revision, the one that triggered your copyvio concern, to my last edit. I found I was not the only person who had contributed brand new passages, brand new paragraphs.  What I also noticed is that many passages from the initial paragraphs that triggered your copyvio concern had already been rewritten.  They weren't rewritten to address a copyvio concern.  They had been rewritten because contributors thought the initial wording needed rewriting, or they were rewritten because they were out of date.  Why is not important.  Those passages were no longer copyright violations.


 * The dozens of people who modified the article, between the version you regarded as a copyright problem, and the first version after your history obfuscation, added new references, correct? Were you planning to make those references available to the people who want to work on the article?  The dozen of edits to this article, between that first revision, and your copyvio notice, represent dozens of hours of good faith contributor's time.  Was it really necessary to make people duplicate all that work?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is normal for revisions containing blatant copyright violations to be hidden in the history – see WP:RD1. When a page is listed at WP:CP, there's a minimum of a week in which any interested editor can create an appropriate rewrite of the page, making use of whatever references and copyvio-free material from earlier revisions that they wish. This was done for this article by another editor. A different editor (you, actually) had removed the blanking template from the page, so I moved that rewrite into place sooner than I would normally have done. The references in the article when I blanked it were these:


 * Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)