Talk:Lauren Booth

message: Who's really her mother ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.205.159 (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister or Half-sister of Cherie ? 

message: Why did she change her first name, actually ? Because it sounds too jewish ? RCS (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah to Lauren 

message: The labeling of Lauren Booth as terror sympathiser is original research and a violation of the Wikipedia:BLP policy. If you want to include this label, please find reputable sources which describe her as a terror sympathiser (possibly based on her visit to Gaza) and cite them here. The linked photo does not suffice.  87.79.65.207 (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it would be more neutral and accurate to call her a pro-Palestinian activist.  Mezigue (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "terror sympathiser" 

message: It said South of France.  That has been corrected to South of Gaza.  Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.243.80 (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Residence 

message: From here. She obviously means it literally, because she geographically can go neither into Israel, nor take a boat or swim back. The point is, is someone who calls Israel "the devil" and who changes her jewish sounding first name to a non-jewish sounding first name a Jew-hater? This is rethorical question. Oh, and here is a picture of her among "starving" Gazans. And another one.  RCS (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am between the devil and the deep blue sea." 

message: Here is the part in question:
"Booth also said that she believed the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur" and called Gaza "the largest concentration camp in the world today," though the Jerusalem Post suggested that a photograph of Booth in a well-stocked Gaza grocery "bel[ied] the grim picture she painted of the Strip"."
Ok, so whoever wrote this part is limiting the parameters for discussion of the humanitarian situation in Gaza to Lauren Booth and the JPost.
First we get Booth's opinion - which makes sense, this is HER article. And then we get the JPost as if they are an authority on Booth's opinions. Meaning, why do we get JPost's opinion? Are they the only news source to comment on Booth? The notion that they juxtapose her comments next to some picture as if THAT is empirical proof of WHATEVER is going on is blatant POV. 
The author of this part is first setting up Booth's opinion and then criticizing it via the JPost article.
However, if this is the case, why not mention all the numerous opinions of the NGOs - Amnesty International, B'Tselem, HRW, etc. Is there any MEANINGFUL dissent on this issue? The pro-Israel camp will of course say there is no humanitarian crisis. They will say that Gaza is perfectly fine. Absolutely ridiculous of course. But this has no place in the article. 
:Agreed, if consensus has shifted I suggest we remove the final part of the paragraph. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS empirical that somebody who is photographed smiling smugly in a well-stocked grocery () while claiming that the very place she is being photographed in is suffering of hunger, starvation and need, is either a shameless liar or a very twisted and sick mind. BUT i agree that this article is not the place to psychoanalyze Mrs. Booth. In my opinion she is completely crazy, but this is her and her believer's problem, not mine. --RCS (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gaza section and blatant pro-Israel POV 

message: Someone keeps trying to label Ms. Booth a Shia, but she has explicitly stated she is not adopting such labels at this time.  See references below:
Here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1325231/Why-I-love-Islam-Lauren-Booth-defiantly-explains-Muslim.html?ito=feeds-newsxml "I have a relationship with a couple of mosques in North London, and I am hoping to make a routine of going at least once a week. I would never say, by the way, whether I will take a Sunni or a Shia path."
And here: http://www.presstv.ir/detail/148483.html "I have embraced Islam and I am not taking one particular path at this time and I am not going to feel compelled to announce that I am from one part of Islam or another because I am going follow what Allah is leading me too and I think it is quite a big enough jump that I have come this far from a secular existence into Islam and I hope that people can celebrate that with me from the Muslim world."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.169.2 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booth does not accept "shia" or "sunni" labels at this time 

message: This article was in the 'converts to Islam from Judaism' and 'converts to Islam from Catholicism' categories. I can't find any sources that actually state Lauren Booth was either Jewish or Catholic before converting to Islam. Her mother was Jewish, but she was not raised in the religion; and her half-sister Cherie is Catholic, but that doesn't mean she is. If anyone has any sources about her former religion, could they please provide them? Robofish (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former religion? 

message: Lauren Booth is described here as daughter of Tony Booth and Pamela Smith (Cohen). But in Antony Booth, a Pamela Smith (Cohen) is not mentioned as one of Tony Booth's four spouses. So one of these articles must be incorrect. --Jeppi (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents? 

message: ````  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campingtrip (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestion

message: The Header Religious conversion and criticism is misleading and ambiguous. There must be a clear separation between Booth's personal decision to convert to Islam, and criticisms that relate to her professional conduct as a journalist or activist. There is nothing wrong with having "religious conversion" and "criticism" as separate sections. However, the juxtaposition seems to imply that her personal decision to convert to Islam is something worthy of critical comment. This appears to be a subtle attack on Booth's freedom of worship. My suggested edit is to delete "and criticism" and make "Criticism" a separate section.--Campingtrip (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious conversion and criticism

message: Julie Burchill criticised Booth both for a career in which, "she works as a paid stooge for the murderous Iranian regime's television channel" and asked of her conversion "what sort of woman freely converts to a religion which supports the oppression, torment and murder of thousands of Christians, homosexuals and spirited women, worldwide, every year? The sort of woman who writes love letters to a serial killer, I reckon.
The above quotation from Julie Burchill is loaded with anti Islamic bias and what is worse is that she takes an unjustifiably hostile view towards Booth’s conversion to Islam. Nothing in Burchill’s quotation can be regarded as objective criticism regarding some aspect of Booth’s personal or professional conduct. This gives the article an anti-Islamic bias hidden behind what appears to be a factual quotation. Besides, who is Julie Burchill and why does the author think that she (Burchill) has the moral authority to pass Judgement on Booth's personal decision to convert to Islam? Isn't Lauren Booth entitled to freedom of religion?
The Independent's official diarist commented: ‘Can you really claim to have converted to Islam when you’ve only read the first 60 pages of the Koran? What if you don’t like the ending?’
The above quotation is misplaced. why must the independent's diarist be implicitly regarded as an "authenticator" of religious conversions to Islam (as if such authentication were even necessary)? That is what the quotation from the diarist suggests. Furthermore, Booth's conversion to Islam is fact and not a claim and this must be stated emphatically. Not only is the quotation misplaced, it suggests that converting to Islam requires reading a certain minimum number of pages of the Koran and this is not true. 
Criticisms must be relevant and neutral as per Wikipedia's own policy. The above quotations, upon objective analysis, are mere expressions of hostility towards Lauren Booth's decision to convert to Islam and not only is this unfair, but quite dangerous since they touch on an Individual's freedom of worship. --Campingtrip (talk) 07:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation Bias

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lauren Booth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110701193721/http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/alerts/item/1735-update-lauren-booth-and-sami-al-hajj-join-cageprisoners-as-patrons to http://www.cageprisoners.com/our-work/alerts/item/1735-update-lauren-booth-and-sami-al-hajj-join-cageprisoners-as-patrons
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lauren Booth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219011841/http://www.laurenbooth.org.uk/?page_id=2 to http://www.laurenbooth.org.uk/?page_id=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified