Talk:Humza Yousaf

Pedantic but important for an encyclopedia... you are not formally First Minister until you have received Warrant from the monarch and take the oath at the Court of Session.^[1]. Until then Mr Yousaf is First Minister-designate and the article should reflect that.^[2] 2A02:C7C:D009:6900:69D4:A819:2A5F:A2C0 (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

He also is not yet a Privy Counsellor, he will be appointed one but showing him as The Rt Hon isn't correct, yet. 2.96.46.87 (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Not sure there’s enough evidence for this line. This seems like it’s been added by his campaign director to win the leadership contest. There’s evidence he skipped the vote on gay marriage.

I think this line takes away from the neutral purpose of the article. Think it should be removed. El dude brother2 (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. “Strong” is entirely subjective and Yousaf has been criticised for not attending the same sex marriage vote. Not to mention it’s inappropriate for a personal life section and the source is dubious.

Sounds like something someone with a promotional agenda would write. Asperthrow (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

He is only able to be leader and first minister by virtue of being an MSP. At the very least his current constituency should not be collapsed. Asperthrow (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Since his appointment as First Minister, there has been a number of new images uploaded of Yousaf which are contenders for the infobox. Below are some, and perhaps we can reach a consensus on which one is best.

I believe Image 1 is best, as Yousaf is actually looking at the camera. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither. Should be his last official portrait. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, I think we should use the most recent official portrait in line with other UK politicians' articles. That appears to be image 1, which is used on the First Minister section of the Scottish Government's website. However, I think the background of the image seems a bit distasteful for an official portrait (i.e. less official), and Yousaf still looks largely the same as he does in his 2021 official portrait (image 3) which I think looks better and more official. Therefore, I'd prefer we use image 3 instead. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that there is a similar photo on Talk:Scotland which adds a fourth option, his swearing-in picture (personally that one is my preferred option - it's nicely composed and well-lit). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Not clear why we have this section. As First Minister, Yousaf does not have any competence when it comes to foreign policy, nor is any of the content here actually policy per se (It's all "Yousaf-met-X-and-said-Y", not actual policy which Yousaf does not have the powers to set anyway). Could retitle this to something else other than "policy" but I'm not sure what - maybe "overseas visits"? FOARP (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The links to the newspapers do not represent the finds of complaint

1. The provider must demonstrate, by 12 December 2021, that the service is being well led and managed. In order to achieve this the provider must ensure that: (a) Consistent and robust systems are introduced to manage admission requests so that these are processed in a transparent and equitable manner and in line with the aims and objectives of the service. (b) The management team is fully resourced. (c) Communication with prospective families is improved to demonstrate that applicants are treated in a courteous and respectful manner. People must receive the right information.

This would seem to support the claim that there wasn't an admission system in place before the complaint was made? Which is what the nursery admitted. This is vastly different from a complaint over discrimination Abz zeus (talk) 11:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Place of birth should state "Rutherglen, South Lanarkshire", NOT "Rutherglen, South Lankershire" 2A02:C7C:D00E:F600:6E9E:73A0:8A1E:31D1 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Liu1126 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Humza Yousaf did not use the word 'stuck' regarding his wife's parent being trapped in Gaza nor was the word 'stuck' used in the article used as a reference. The word is rather demeaning toward them and what was a very serious situation. It should be changed to 'trapped' which was the term used in the article or at least the quote marks removed since it clearly is NOT a quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.38.12.191 (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty standard to include. Does he have a Gaelic translation of his name? 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:4C94:30E2:99B2:8FFF (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So now I see it just translates to the same. Is it um, pronounced the same? 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:4C94:30E2:99B2:8FFF (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As 'Humza' and 'Yousaf' are not Gaelic names there is no Gaelic spelling or pronunciation. As far as I'm aware, Humza doesn't speak Gaelic and so does not have a Gaelic name.

Gaelic Wikipedia uses the same spelling this article does. 2.30.72.170 (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

People opposing the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 have claimed Scottish First Minister Humza Yousef, who introduced the law to Scottish Parliament, violated the Act in 2020 after a video surfaced of Yousaf giving a so called 'anti-white' speech in Scottish Parliament. Some people complain that this speech incites hatred against Scotland's white population which led to Police Scotland receiving more than 1000 reports about Yousaf in the first week of the Act's passing. Police Scotland put out a statement effectively confirming no violation of the act had been made. However, under the new legislation, Police Scotland were required to record the speech as a 'Non-Criminal Hate Incident' in which Yousaf would be named. In a BBC HARD Talk interview with Yousaf, when confronted with these allegations, Yousaf claimed "I've not seen anybody who's described it that way that isn't, frankly, part of the far-right". In response, many users on Social Media suggested Yousaf was above his own law. WikiCooke (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 15:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/watch-in-full-humza-yousafs-white-people-speech-that-has-sparked-racism-complaints-under-scotlands-new-hate-crime-law-4578704 Please add the fact that his speech was accused of racism if this article is to be balanced. Hizip Fanatik (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yousaf is no longer First Minister/has resigned https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-68968015 2A00:23EE:2320:4E55:2902:6A8E:CFCA:3004 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be a "criticism" section at least, here is why.

Racism as a fact, produced in any aim, manner or tone including in an attempt to be anti-racist is/remains racism. I find it a clear and deliberate political aim and opinion bias that wiki admins continually permit wording & additions that protects the image of BAME politicians, or notable persons on multiple wiki pages, whilst allowing negative connotations and criticism against white politicians, such as politicians such as Alex Salmond for a local Scottish example, deleting sources, opinions and statements worldwide that shine a bad light on notable BAME person's.

New outlets globally, including professional bodies, qualified persons have spoken internationally and publicly over the years, arguing that Humza's speech was/is racist, even if that was not the initial intention of Humza, also disrespectful to the rule of democracy and a contradiction as systemic racism includes the act of selective recruitment based on skin colour, which was Humza's entire point, that people of colour should be deliberately selected (represented) and placed in positions of leadership, disregarding the democratic process, or rule of equality, i.e. the best person for the job for example (qualified & experienced), applications evaluated equally.

Ethnic minorities in Scotland rates the white population at 98% white, therefore the majority of political applicants are white as a result, the majority of those obtaining the qualification are white and the majority of the population who vote democratically for their chosen representatives would be white. We see this human behaviour in every race/ethnicity in the UK, Indian communities vote for their own, Pakistani communities vote for their own including Arabian and Asian peoples, everyone naturally votes for people like themselves who mirror themselves and background, the issue with wester politics is a social culture that permits a belief its 100% ok for any non-white person to only vote for their own race or religion, however if white people do it, its a systemic racist act.

After close evaluation, there was no identifiable systemic racism proven in Scotland's processes which places BAME people at a disadvantage, in fact Scotland's process places BAME peoples at a superior advantage as there are no government funded initiatives for people of white skin (for being white), there are many programs that are aimed to benefit BAME persons for being a minority in Scotland, therefore an acceptable act of racism that excludes white Scots or white new Scots to benefit the BAME community.

Humza Yousaf's controversial 'white' speech as follows; Why are we so surprised when the most senior positions in Scotland are filled almost exclusively by people who are white? Take my portfolio, for example.

The Lord President is white, the Lord Justice Clerk is white, every High Court judge is white, the Lord Advocate is white, the Solicitor General is white, the chief constable is white, every deputy chief constable is white, every assistant chief constable is white, the head of the Law Society is white, the head of the Faculty of Advocates is white and every prison governor is white.

That is not the case only in justice. The chief medical officer is white, the chief nursing officer is white, the chief veterinary officer is white, the chief social work adviser is white and almost every trade union in the country is headed by white people. In the Scottish Government, every director general is white. Every chair of every public body is white.

That is not good enough.

I do not doubt that across the private sector, black and minority ethnic people are similarly underrepresented at senior levels. That is a collective failure that includes every single one of us. - End.

Seventeen times, a person, a human being employed within a role was called out for being white skinned, each followed with the statement, that is not good enough.

The speech is acceptably translated as, its not good giving all the jobs to white people, it is not a good thing the democratic people voted for all the white people, it is not a good thing that all those white people applied for the roles fairly, providing a CV and were successful, BAME peoples should be handed the roles in my opinion or have equal amount for diversity.

Now, lets reverse the statement and say: its not a good thing there are so many black people employed in this building, in this government, in this room, there are too many black persons in top jobs, it is also not a good thing there are so many Asians hired within this building where 98% of the workers are Asian, this is not good enough.

Nicola Sturgeon, former SNP FM and predecessor to Humza herself made a statement that is does not matter if you are white or black, if you throw in the towel for Scotland, you are Scottish, contradictory to Humza stating it is problematic if your white and retain the majority of employment roles, clearly they are not aligned on the official definitions of (racism) & (equality). credential imply, it does not matter how many people of one skin colour hold top jobs, skin colour is irrelevant, we are humans and those who apply with the correct credentials and are successful are the humans who deserve the jobs. We all know in Scotland, you can be legally dismissed under employment inc. equality law for stating there are too many people of an ethnicity employed at that premises, which is the get out of free card politicians are permitted, well some.

The other part of todays acceptable racist social culture implies that all white people's are racist, white countries are automatically racist and only white persons can be racist, if a BAME person makes any racist remark, they are simply being anti-racist, yet Scotland & the UK has had over 1000 acts of racism committed against white peoples in the last generation, identified on the annual crime statistics, not a favoured topic for any politicians we can agree. Moving on.

Humza has been criticised for his failure in many roles, his lack of respect and disrespectful speeches, his breaking laws and causing chaos as Health Minister. As a politician, he has not had a good, clean or streamlined career and equally should have a "criticism" section with sources, not routinely deleted by wiki admins & editors just because they (don't like them), if the source exists, it should have the right to be present on Wikipedia.

As a child of darker skinned migrants, I myself have had a lifetime of racial abuse from brown, black and white children/adults, yet I believe in equality and that is why I can see Wikipedia across many pages lacks just that.

Humza Yousaf's speech was as a fact per definition, equally as per previous legal cases held regarding racial abuses in the workplace an act of racism, regardless of his intended aim. His page should permit fare "criticism" with sources as per 100s of other wiki pages. 194.73.217.219 (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Italian Immigrant

There appears to be a lot of WP:OR/opinion here – so, to get to the point: if you want to include criticisms of his speech in the article you're going to have to provide sources that demonstrate there was widespread criticism of it. Also consider WP:WEIGHT – every politician is criticised in what they say to a degree, so for us to include it we need to prove that the criticism itself is notable. Also see WP:CRITS – criticism sections are generally discouraged. — Czello ^(music) 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)