Talk:Irfan Yusuf

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 18:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Several references have been deleted by one editor, it would be great if they could carefully consider what they've deleted and explain why they've done it. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

For ease of discussion, I thought it might be useful if we can list concerns about the article under each heading and move on from there. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal party involvement

Leaving the Liberal Party

Question about SBS transcript

The Australian Parliament Library database[1] has stored a transcript of an Insight programme, in which Irfan Yusuf was interviewed as part of a discussion about religion. It has some interesting stuff about his views on sharia etc. Its pretty well summarised in the article so am wondering whether it should be included, in whole or in part. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

JENNY BROCKIE: Irfan, you're an Australian Muslim, you began your education in Australia and then you attended a madrassa in Pakistan. There were a lot of twists and turns in your education after that - tell us a little bit about those twists and turns.

IRFAN YUSUF: After being in a primary school in Pakistan during school hours and then madrassa before and after school, I ended up at Princeton (the town). And after spending time at a madrassa where I was surrounded by boys with skull caps it was natural when I got to Princeton that I would gravitate toward another set of boys who also had skull caps and who also didn't eat pork at home and what have you.

JENNY BROCKIE: So you liked the Jewish boys?

IRFAN YUSUF: Oh, absolutely, yeah, and then I got back to Australia and went to Ryde East Primary School in the heart of John Howard - of what used to be John Howard's electorate and ended up at St Andrew's, where in Year 10 I was - we were taught or we were actually shown videos of a chap named Frances Schaffer.

JENNY BROCKIE: Now this is an Anglican school?

IRFAN YUSUF: Now this is an Anglican mainstream established Anglican school where we were shown videos of Frances Schaffer as regarded as the ideological founder of the moral majority and the festival of light.

JENNY BROCKIE: What did that mean in terms of your views then in exploring theocratic Islam, where did you end up? What did you end up thinking and believing?

IRFAN YUSUF: I guess what I really believed in was that you know, you had to have God in government. I mean, Frances Schaffer was very strong about the idea that, you know, that the Enlightenment was, you know, wasn't really a good idea - the French revolution, you know, was basically all about chopping heads that...

JENNY BROCKIE: So you ended up believing in sharia law or believing in an Islamic State?

IRFAN YUSUF: Well, I guess what I believed in was that you had to have God had to be in government in some way.

JENNY BROCKIE: So you were believing in an Islamic state, though, in the idea of an Islamic state?

IRFAN YUSUF: I guess, yeah, that's - I explored - that was part of my exploration.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'm interested in talking about this, because, as you know, there's been fierce community opposition to the establishment of some Islamic schools here in Australia for fear of radicalisation. Can you understand that concern?

IRFAN YUSUF: Not really, because from what I've seen, I mean, I've acted for them, I've seen the way they manage their industrial relations issues and what have you, and from what I've seen is that they really go tend to go, I think, almost go overboard in separating religious studies from the rest of the curriculum.

Concerns over major revisions

Here is the diff that shows the two version I'm talking about [2].

1) The intro paragraph said he is a "solicitor , social commentator and author". The new intro gets very specific about what type of lawyer and says he "is the author of a memoir "Once Were Radicals - My years as a teenage Islamo-fascist". This seems to specific to me and leaves out his other writings. If it's appropriate to detail what type of law he practices I would prefer to do it in the body of the article.

: There was no other reference to his legal career in the rest of the article, so I thought it fit there best.

: His memoir is a published book, that will be quite notable. I know of no other significant works by him other than his blogs and a few opeds.

2)The education section got rid of "Irfan grew up in Sydney but spent periods in Karachi and Princeton, New Jersey, USA. He was educated St Andrew’s Cathedral School in Sydney,..." In favor of saying he was "raised by parents of Indian Muslim background". Didn't he grow up mostly in Australia with periods in these other places? Did he spend as much time in pakistan and the U.S. making it proper to give those locations equal weight? My understanding is that he grew up mostly in Australia, but spent some time in those places. Also, what is the significance of his parent's background? Are they Muslim? Didn't they move to Pakistan after living in India? It seems weird to select the Indian Muslim part and give that so much weight. Generally I prefer the old version.

: I think all those details of his background should be included as they currently are. I don't know what time he spent in each place, the sources don't shed light on that, that I'm aware. He is of Indian descent, even though born in Pakistan, I suspect it is something that would be normally explained in an encyclopedia article. I agree it doesn't need much weight, merely should be mentioned.

3) The details about his interest in Islamo-fascism need to be contexted. Again it's a weight and emphasis issue. My understanding is that he engaged with these ideas for a period (short?) in his life. But the wording doesn't seem to me to make this clear. How long was this period in his life? The quotes used add to the emphasis on the period of his radicalism. His rejection of those ideas or return to mainstream or AUstralian or whatever values isn't discussed at all in this section.

: It's relevant because it's his own description, including on his own memoir. I don't have sources on his rejection of those ideas but would be certainly open to include them. I can't put in there what I haven't found though.

: The article also states his views are more moderate than Sheik Hilaly, which is not really supported by anything. But I'm that's true. So I'm not sure what to do what that part.

4)Why is it better to say he was involved in Muslim Youth groups rather than to say what groups he was a part of? Again this seems like an effort to add weight to certain aspects of his life and doesn't seem appropriate to me. Why was "Yusuf served as President of the Bankstown Young Liberals and the Bankstown Liberal State Electorate Conference and was on the on NSW State Liberal Council from 1996-2000" taken out?

: They were taken out because I couldn't find a source for them. I thought that's what you'd requested in the first place.

4)As far as the rest of the article, I have the same issues. The quotations used seem to be very selective and unnecessarily (unencyclopedically) inflammatory.

: It would be better if you were more specific, I think the quotations shed light on an interesting phase in politics in the subject's life and on the controversies caused an oped he wrote, seemed perfectly relevant. Not sure in what respect they are inflammatory and all are sourced correctly. I agree it would be good to include other material to keep it appropriately weighted but I'd certainly oppose deleting useful material, I think it would be a terrible shame to junk all the work that's been done here.

5) Along those lines, why was: "Yusuf has written on various social and political issues for newspapers and websites Crikey!, New Matilda, Malaysiakini, AltMuslim, and ABC Unleashed. He has appeared on radio and TV programs in Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. Yusuf has his own blogs where he has criticised some aspects of Australian and American foreign policy as well as local and international Muslim religious and political figures, including former Mufti of Australia, Sheik Elhilaly." and "He is the author of the memoir Once we Were Radicals and has spoken on his "search for balance within layers of identity" including growing up in Australia, interest in political Islam, Indian ancestry, Pakistani birth, Urdu language and culture and Muslim religion. Yusuf was awarded the Iremonger award by publishers Allen and Unwin for the book. He was awarded a Highly Commended for the Eureka Street/Human Rights Writing for an essay on combating violence against women in Muslim-majority states in 2008." taken out?

: They've been redrafted to included substantially the same material, the radio, TV references I think was removed, but not consciously, I suspect because far too many changes were reverted without consulting which I suppose is what we're trying to fix now. I don't really have any problem with including anything that is substantiated and relevant.

Those are my issues with the changes made. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with ChildofMidnight. The article does seem to have become overly focused on certain aspects of his life and work. The result is an implication that he has a certain type of background that is relevant/influential to his work or gives him certain authority or relevance there, which is totally WP:SYN/WP:NPOV. If we're going to talk about his background and his work (which is completely appropriate for a bio page obviously), we absolutely can't cherry-pick or give undue weight if there is verifiable information available. DMacks (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

: I don't disagree, I think if there's more material to include, that would be good. His book is being released soon so I think there'll be some interest in all of this, perhaps meriting a longer article that might address the issue of proportion or not weighting material correctly.

Are there any particular areas you think we could work on in that respect. He has written a lot on his blogs about his views but I haven't got into that as I think it's possible to use his blog as a source? Certainly open to ideas and suggestions and I think it's been great to have the input in improving the article.

I'll also put the comments I made on Child's page about the article generally here for consideration as I think that deals with some of the concerns/issues too. Thanks for very much for taking the time to go through this as I'm sure it will lead to a much better article than the first version or this current one.. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 05:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

After a few weeks of no response to my responses, a whole range of well-sourced material was deleted. I have reverted the changes which were made without any attempt to include the material, relating to the publication of his book and other matters. I'm not sure why this approach was taken but I think it's unfortunate. A more constructive approach might be to rewrite the article without deleting a great deal of well-sourced information. I've done my best and will be happy to contribute to a re-write if someone intitiates one. But deleting most of the article, reverting to a much older version (that is out of date and much less interesting and with less reliable sourcing) seems to be a backward move to me. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Having reflected on the changes made, it seems even worse than a backward step to delete the picture his recent book cover and a substantial body of work on the subject of the article. Please do not revert without further discussion here, it isn't good practice. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the concerns raised about your version of the article. You are welcome to seek a broader consensus if you're not happy with the outcome of this discussion. It's possible that other editors will determine your unencyclopedic version that gives undue weight a variety of provocative assertions is proper. I've discussed this with you here and on my talk page and I think on your talk page before that. I udnerstand you disagree with my conclusions, but there is no one so far who agrees with your arguments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not justified removing the material you have removed. I am happy to discuss the matter, indeed each sentence with you. I don't have a fixed view about the material, but I do have a fixed view about the way you are unilaterally acting. I don't like it and I doubt other editors would agree with your approach. If you think any particular reference is unencyclopedic, it would be great for you to be specific. Until then, I encourage you to stop deleting material, including material that brings the article up to date. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a positive suggestion for you. Starting with the first sentence, can you identify any issue you have with revised version. I'm happy to go through it one sentence at a time, that way we can resolve the issue without having general and endless discussions. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are my concerns again, including regarding the opening sentences: Here is the diff that shows the two version I'm talking about [3].

1) The intro paragraph said he is a "solicitor , social commentator and author". The new intro gets very specific about what type of lawyer and says he "is the author of a memoir "Once Were Radicals - My years as a teenage Islamo-fascist". This seems too specific to me and leaves out his other writings. If it's appropriate to detail what type of law he practices I would prefer to do it in the body of the article.

A solicitor is a very specific term in fact. It's also wrong and an informal use of the term, technically he is a barrister and solicitor in state of New South Wales, admitted to its Supreme Court. Less formal, more precise though is calling him A lawyer with a specialty in workplace law. This is what the sources tell us. I note the new version is sourced, and makes specific reference to his work.

A social commentator is a very broad and almost entirely useless term in my view. It's not even particularly true in this case. He earns his living as a lawyer. What is far more noteworthy is that he is about to be a published author by a mainstream publishing house. It is for that that he is well-known and indeed I would say notable. It is quite appropriate therefore to make specific reference to his book and explain the book cover graphic that appears. The book title also help explains the transition the subject has made from his teenage years to his later more moderate politics. That transition will be easier to draw out I think - and will help the article greatly - once his book is available publicly. Also I note the old version deletes reference to his birth-place in a way that is not consistent with encyclopedic form.

So I really cannot agree with your change from the new version of that sentence to the next. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2)The education section got rid of "Irfan grew up in Sydney but spent periods in Karachi and Princeton, New Jersey, USA. He was educated St Andrew’s Cathedral School in Sydney,..." In favor of saying he was "raised by parents of Indian Muslim background". Didn't he grow up mostly in Australia with periods in these other places? Did he spend as much time in pakistan and the U.S. making it proper to give those locations equal weight? My understanding is that he grew up mostly in Australia, but spent some time in those places. Also, what is the significance of his parent's background? Are they Muslim? Didn't they move to Pakistan after living in India? It seems weird to select the Indian Muslim part and give that so much weight. Generally I prefer the old version.

The sources say what his background is. The new version notes where he lived, and reveal he spent lengthy periods of time in those places. By excluding reference to his parents background, his birthplace and residence in Karachi suggests he is of Pakistani descent when he's actually of Indian descent. The sources suggest otherwise. I urge you to look at them before making the blanket reversions we have seen you make, deleting useful, well-sourced and positive material. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

3) The details about his interest in Islamo-fascism need to be contexted. Again it's a weight and emphasis issue. My understanding is that he engaged with these ideas for a period (short?) in his life. But the wording doesn't seem to me to make this clear. How long was this period in his life? The quotes used add to the emphasis on the period of his radicalism. His rejection of those ideas or return to mainstream or AUstralian or whatever values isn't discussed at all in this section.

Not sure if contexted is a word but I actually agree with you about including more material on the transformation of his views. It perhaps deserves another section. But the well-sourced descriptions of the views he had are important to leave in to show where he's come from and indeed the underlying facts behind his notability. He is of more moderate views now, it seems. What I would like you to do is find more examples of that in the sources and we can work through that. The sources I've found don't make that clear, perhaps you'll do better. I suspect his forthcoming book will make it clear that he now rejects "Islamofascism" (a term I don't much like myself). --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

4)Why is it better to say he was involved in Muslim Youth groups rather than to say what groups he was a part of? Again this seems like an effort to add weight to certain aspects of his life and doesn't seem appropriate to me. Why was "Yusuf served as President of the Bankstown Young Liberals and the Bankstown Liberal State Electorate Conference and was on the on NSW State Liberal Council from 1996-2000" taken out?

There are no sources that I could find for that material, and I couldn't find any evidence of them existing would be the main reason for removing the rather inane listing of these groups. If we don't have sources, I'm not sure we should be making things up. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[4] [5] [6] Rd232 ^talk 00:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

4)As far as the rest of the article, I have the same issues. The quotations used seem to be very selective and unnecessarily (unencyclopedically) inflammatory.

What quotations do you have difficulty with? Are any insufficiently sourced or not relevant. It is really not helpful to make these continued generalisations and not back them up and not make specific criticism. If you think there a more quotations or whatever that could be included, I'd be very open to that. I'm really struggling to see where you're coming from on this. And looking at the quotations now, the reason they are included is that it was the first notable public events involving Irfan, where his views and political activities were reported in the mainstream media. The question I normally ask myself in helping an article is why does subject matter, why is it interesting and worth reading about. Setting out involvement in one of the big Australian political parties and subsequent fight with them is entirely encyclopedic and isn't meant to be inflammatory, just interesting. I think it is and I see no reason to delete it. Nor have you made a satisfactory argument for its deletion. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

5) Along those lines, why was: "Yusuf has written on various social and political issues for newspapers and websites Crikey!, New Matilda, Malaysiakini, AltMuslim, and ABC Unleashed. He has appeared on radio and TV programs in Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia. Yusuf has his own blogs where he has criticised some aspects of Australian and American foreign policy as well as local and international Muslim religious and political figures, including former Mufti of Australia, Sheik Elhilaly." and "He is the author of the memoir Once we Were Radicals and has spoken on his "search for balance within layers of identity" including growing up in Australia, interest in political Islam, Indian ancestry, Pakistani birth, Urdu language and culture and Muslim religion. Yusuf was awarded the Iremonger award by publishers Allen and Unwin for the book. He was awarded a Highly Commended for the Eureka Street/Human Rights Writing for an essay on combating violence against women in Muslim-majority states in 2008." taken out?

I suggest you read the article. Both of the parts you quote are in the article, as it currently stands. I would like you to check that for yourself right now and make it clear here that they were never removed.

So as things stand, you have not raised any serious issue with the new version of the article. Nor have you explained your blanket reversions and mass deletions of well-sourced and thoughtfully included material. I trust you can now agree that the up-to-date version of the article can now stand. I'd certainly welcome your addition of new sources and will help in any way I can. I think you can make a positive contribution to the article. I'll be very pleased if you do. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are some of my issues with the changes made. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded above and italicised my responses to make it easier to follow the discussion. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 edits

It would be preferred for rd232's changes were discussed here but so far we see no sign of that. I have attempted to incorporate changes that seemed reasonable. What isn't reasonable is deleting well-sourced references to his political involvements, without any justification that makes sense. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What has been deleted is WP:BLP-violating WP:NOTNEWS junk (about the bomb thing, which makes it look like Yusuf said something rather contentious which he did not) and excessive quotation (WP:WEIGHT). You, on the other hand, have deleted relevant sourced information and sources (about the early career) and re-added a quote not backed up by the source given ("factional warrior"); your claim to have "incorporated most of them" is simply untrue. (Oh, and you've added the irrelevant and unsourced claim that Eureka Street is "Jesuit".) Reverting. Justify the BLP-violating material you wish to retain, and your deletion of sourced material. Rd232 ^talk 22:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Johnnyturk, in WP:BLP issues, do not go against WP:consensus to re-add disputed material. Reverting. Rd232 ^talk 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEM Might be worth reading, Child of Midnight... --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The source of the bomb comment is here[7]. I'm not sure the comment is particularly contentious at all actually, it was a political conflict in which he was involved with former allies with hyperbole on both sides.

Your other unilateral changes have added little to the article in my view. As I have said I'd be happy to discuss each individual aspect one on one. There seems to be reluctance to engage in that level of detail which I think is holding us back a bit.

Eureka Street is a publication of Jesuit Communications Australia[8]. If you feel that needs to be sourced go ahead but I don't think it does. It has a wikipedia article that says much the same thing, perhaps you could link through to that.

I think your claim about the Eureka Street magazine shows that you might be taking an unnecessarily hostile approach, where you shoot first, presuming bad faith and google for facts later. Can I suggest you try reversing that and keep your shooting to a minimum. I'm not offended by your approach but I know others might be.

Can you please be specific about what BLP-violations there are. And I mean very specific so we can resolve this now. The time for generalities has passed. Let's work this through. I noted Child of Midnight's comment above, which seems at odds with what was written on the BLP page where s/he said s/he wasn't interested in contributing to the article further. That's fine so I think we'll discount CofM's opinion until CofM wants to muck in and contribute to improving the article to a standard we can all be happy with, consistent with Wikipedia policies. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 03:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I felt rather disinclined to fisk these changes which seemed pretty obvious, and edit aummaries sufficing. But............................................. gah. Fine. Main BLP issue which you keep readding was this: [9]. The whole thing is extremely tendentious WP:SYNTH which says that Yusuf accused someone of having a bomb, which he did not: read the source [10], not the title of the source which is completely misleading. (It also makes it look like a subsequent Yusuf article was connected with this non-incident, without any evidence.) Absent that claim the whole thing is not worth reporting. The rest I can't care about at this hour, just don't add back the BLP violation. Rd232 ^talk 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the quotes are a BLP issue too, because of the strength of Clarke's rejection of Yusuf's allegations. And it's a WP:WEIGHT issue. So reverting that too. Plus you removed fact tags I added for unsourced claims about legal threats. Did you not notice, or not care, or what? Rd232 ^talk 04:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Eureka Street: either a wikilink or an external source would do, but there is no obvious reason to specify Jesuit. I'm not assuming bad faith, I merely noted that it's irrelevant. Also I note that you've again re-added the "factional warrior" quote which is not backed up by any source, but the placing of a related source suggests it is. Perhaps you could clean this up? Add a source, or remove the quote, those are the options. I couldn't find a source so I removed it. Rd232 ^talk 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW, sorry for sounding irritated, but having spent some effort fixing the article, I was irritated at being reverted and having to explain every little thing. I'm sure this feeling was partly due to the massive wordy, fisking section above which made me rather want to avoid discussion on matters that I thought were pretty obvious as it promised to turn out rather time-consuming on a topic that doesn't interest me (I came here from WP:BLPN). Rd232 ^talk 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is far from fixed in my view. CofM didn't have time/interest in improving. Now you're kind of saying you're not either. Can we find someone who is? I certainly don't have a monopoly on wisdom and would also rather move on to more notable subjects but it's being made pretty difficult especially when folk swoop in on the article and impose changes without the courtesy of discussing it. Some of your changes have been fine and I've incorporated those as my edits prove.

Instead you denied that and attacked me saying I hadn't. I don't lose my cool very easily so I'll just take that on the chin even though it was a misrepresentation.

But what I'd like to do is work through the article, see what compromises can be made to improve it. If you can't/don't want to, that's OK. But I'd appreciate you respecting my desire to improve its quality and to have a view. I think it's disappointing you write things like:

Did you not notice, or not care, or what?

And very disappointing you don't check before sounding off and using very harsh language in criticising me. Anyway, I look forward to your positive contribution from this point. I'll do my best to ignore the unpleasantries. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful if had a good look through: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You removed the fact tags. I suppose it was unnecessary to ask why in those terms (though it's not like you explained the removal), but I've already apologised for being irritated yesterday. The wording of the defamation claims implies that there was something resembling legal action short of a trial, not the subject mouthing off on the TV programme where the disputed allegations were made. So it didn't occur to me that this might be the source. Also the non-initiation of legal action is completely unsourced, as discussed below. Rd232 ^talk 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your irritation seems to stem from the fact that you presume bad faith and fail in some cases to read the sources carefully. That's OK and I congratulate you for the work on expanding the reference to Yusuf's interaction with Bronwyn Bishop. The lengthy quotes you included helped explain what went on, precisely the same reason why I'm included Yusuf and Clarke's quotes about the disagreement. The fact tags were removed because the sources substantiated the claims in the sentence, which is the normal reason to remove them I think. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which sources did I not read carefully? You mean the issue about that thing (whatever it was) which was sourced somewhere nearby in a way that wasn't obvious? Pfff. Anyway, more substantially, the quotes have come out again because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the quotes are unnecessary and unhelpful, being redundant to the shorter and clearer explanation which I have written. This is completely different from the Bishop case where I have provided more information from the source and from an additional source, and where exact wording matters. Incidentally, I don't know who wrote the original Bishop paragraph, but I cannot assume good faith on the part of its author: there is just no way someone can read the article and write that without appreciating how misleading they are being. This is one reason I was so irritated: clearly someone, at some point, had written something in bad faith, and you kept reverting to it when a glance at the source (after I complained) should have made the problem obvious. Rd232 ^talk 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There have been repeated examples of failing to read the sources thoroughly, blanket reversions without carefully considering them and such. If it helps, I'll gladly list them here but I'm not sure that really matters now. I don't have an issue with the re-draft, it's not exactly how I would have put it but at least you were bold enough to try so I thought I'd leave it be. I do have an issue with the way you attempt to throw your weight around on Talk pages and elsewhere. I encourage you to maintain civility at all times and to remember WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well considering the accuracy of your recent addition on Khatami (which I've had to fix, and then you clarified), let's just agree to btoh be more careful. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Sources that Clarke threatened Yusuf with defamation [11] and this one:

TOM IGGULDEN: And Mr Clarke says he'll sue former Liberal Party candidate Irfan Yusuf after he claimed Mr Clarke had proposed using anti-Semitic and anti-homosexual rhetoric to recruit Muslims to the party. [12]

Your repeated deleting of this in circumstances where sources can be found pretty quickly (and were deleted by a previous editor in a pointless edit war) is pretty disappointing. I will attend to the rest of the issues in a moment. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 04:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And the source for it not happening? People say these things all the time, it's not necessarily worth reporting. Rd232 ^talk 04:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The source for it not happening refers to a sentence YOU have included in one of your manner blanket, ill-considered reversions. I wrote something like, there is nothing on the public record indicating that defamation proceedings were brought, which is true. Not sure how to cite a negative, perhaps you can assist. But referring to the very heated dispute among former allies is interesting, doesn't actually happen that often at all in mainstream party politics and is in part the basis of Yusuf's notability. That's why it should be included. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing on the public record..." is original research. Show secondary reliable sources (not blogs). If you can't, the whole issue isn't worth reporting (WP:WEIGHT). Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to check the sources first. One is a blog written by Irfan himself. I don't have an issue with using it as a source in this instance given that it's listed as his here. But you'll see the second source is from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not a blog the last time we looked. Following your logic, it's clearly worth reporting now we have a reliable source. Glad we could resolve that one, with that in mind, I have reverted it. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no source for not actually suing. So the defamation threat is merely part of the vehement denial, there is no need to mention it. Or the lengthy quotes, which shed no more light on the issue than the phrase quoted, and indeed rather less (can't see the wood for the trees). Rd232 ^talk 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, by the same logic there is no source that he did not sue and indeed in the jurisdiction of NSW it is not unusual to grant suppression orders on defamation cases so who knows there could be one out there. The point is that Clarke made the threat, not as part of his denial but as a separate statement of his intention. That's why it should be included. The "lengthy" quotes are no more than the quotes you added to the story about Bronwyn Bishop, which I thought were really helpful in explaining what happened, so I'm reverting them back in too. There's no reason to exclude them. Your assertion that they are too long is not correct, your assertion that it's not worth reporting is not an opinion I share, I think it's an important part of his story and the quotes help explain what they were disagreeing about. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

BLP

I don't see the defamation issue in what Bronwyn Bishop said of him to be honest. Or vice versa. It was incendiary (pardon the pun) political banter. But it was interesting and a reflection of just how irritated Yusuf's former allies were with him and just how well connected he had been. Clearly interesting material an encyclopedia article. It is worth reporting for the reasons stated, he was quite active in the mainstream conservative party in Australia (quite a change from his previous radical politics). White-washing the whole thing from the article seems very strange to me.

Other than referring in an all-knowing non-specific way to BLP violations, you haven't made an adequate explanation of what you're doing. That's a shame because I'm certainly open to whatever you think would work best but just imposing it and assuming bad faith is not really the right thing as far as I'm concerned.

In any event, it is well established at law that you cannot sue in defamation for statements made in the Parliament, they are the subject of an "absolute privilege". They can be quoted freely, without fear of defamation.

Indeed, I doubt Bishop takes Yusuf's comment about bombs to be a defamation either. I'm not sure what the fuss is about on this issue, other than I think people perhaps not fully thinking it through. I'm patient so I'm happy to discuss it but I'm certainly not happy with the careless and blanket reverts that are deleting sourced material and even citations. It's not helping us build a good article. There are more issues you've raised and I'll come back to them shortly. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The BLP issue lies very simply in the way that the article previously dealt with the issue, which I explained above. I though that a non-misleading, contextualised reflection of the incident would be too long (WP:WEIGHT), so I removed it. Since the incident, properly reported, isn't detrimental to Yusuf, this isn't a "whitewash". The incident is also trivial, and your claim that it is important for his notability would need to be established by more than a news report immediately following it - eg some news reports mentioning it some time later. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The most recent version of the article is not at all misleading. If you say it is, can you specifically explain how it is. If there's no BLP issue, then why withdraw it. I don't agree it's trivial, given the extensive nature of the reportage, as you have said above, it needed secondary sources. So I've reverted your deletions which were not made with consensus, indeed weren't made with any discussion. I'll be pleased that you let them stand. Perhaps you can take time out from reverting and add in the sources that have been deleted by previous sanitisations of the article. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Statements of opinion Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion. There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source). Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action needed

Johnnyturk888 has been on a continuous campaign to smear and undermine the subject of this biography. The problems with his edits have been pointed out repeatedly, yet he repeats them over and over again. A simple example is the way he's mischaracterizing the author in the opening sentences. Here's a link to columns written by Yusuf [13] and yet Turk keeps removing the word "writer" and is now inserting blogger. He's also put in workplace law in the intro, where it doesn't belong, and it looks from this source that Yusuf practices in other areas. His attacks on Yusuf aren't overt, but their derogatory intention is clear in the aggressive insistence on misleading and inaccurate depictions including poorly sources material and statements taken out of context. I don't want to spend any more time reverting his edits, so I think it's time that Johnnyturk888 is encouraged to move along. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

If you think admin action is needed, this isn't the way to get it. However I agree that characterising Yusuf as merely a blogger is silly in view of the Canberra Times and other articles. Also the source given for workplace law actually says "New South Wales-based lawyer with a practice focusing on workplace relations and commercial dispute resolution." which is far too much detail for the intro.Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Also (I don't know why this keeps happening on this article) this source [14] (the one given in the old intro [15] to support "blogger") does not support the assertion that in regard to his writing activity he is best characterised as a "blogger". Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I encourage anyone to compare the article before I brought it up to date with its current state. With some useful contributions for Rd232, it is much improved and includes the subject's most recent works. I thank Rd232 for mucking in and making a positive contribution to the article. Rd232 started by just reverting most things I'd written, and then eventually we developed some to and fro and I think that's good.

What is less satisfactory, as evidence here by contributions from others is a blatant breach of Wikipedia policies WP:NPA and WP:CIV. There are many others who might be bullied out of the way by the approach we have seen here and I think that's a terrible shame. Particularly egregious is the stated approach of one editor who has said he's not interested in the article but wishes to stop me from contributing to it through "administrative action". And why? Because he accuses me of editing in bad faith (evidenced by nothing) and indeed has presumed that from the very beginning. The differences that exist over the article are largely ones of style, in my view and on most of them I've tried to give ground.

My priority has been to improve the quality and breadth of the sources and to make the article as interesting and encyclopedic as possible. The assertion that my objective has been to diminish the subject is clearly false demonstrated by the fact that I found further particulars on his soon to be nationally published book, obtained a graphic of its cover and made reference to it when the previous version of the article had not. Hardly the actions of someone wanting to diminish the subject.

Administrative action against the kind of conduct we've seen on this Talk page would be welcome, it's been ugly and sad at times to see it. I'm not holding my breath that anything will be done about Child of Midnight's edits/conduct on Talk but it should be.

The article is developing well and I think we've achieved some good compromises despite the reluctance of some to talk matters through here. The subject's book is due for publication soon and I think that will add some important material to improve the article further. Until then, I encourage Child of Midnight to familiarise himself with Wikipedia policies and avoid making personal attacks in future. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, no admin action is going to materialise merely by complaining on the talk page. Go to WP:NPOVN or Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts or similar. I rather think that isn't going to be helpful, though. If there are particular content issues we can't sort out here, we can do a request for comment. Rd232 ^talk 14:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

15 newspapers? Doubtful

I don't think it's a big deal but I doubt there are fifteen newspapers in Australia, New Zealand and Brunei that have published Irfan Yusuf's work.

This source, with data provided by Yusuf presumably, claims that he has been published in fifteen major metropolitan newspapers in those places, which would practically be all of them, or possibly more than all of them[16].

I don't say that to diminish him but because - based on my work in improving article - I have seen The Australian, Canberra Times, Sydney Morning Herald, New Zealand Herald, The Age, Brunei Times, Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun. That's eight major metropolitan newspapers, a great effort to be sure. But a long way short of fifteen. Has he been published elsewhere? If we can't prove it up, I don't think the number should be included. Citing the author's own claim on an online opinion page is probably not really satisfactory, while written in the third person the bio pages on that site are written by the individual contributors, as was the Uni Melb reference no doubt based on information supplied by the subject. It would be a mistake in this case to repeat it without checking its veracity or finding a more reliable source than the subject's own promotional material. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is perfectly reasonable and normal to rely on information from a subject unless there is contradiction or other reason to doubt it. Also if you carefully read the source given (I keep saying this to you, or at least thinking it), it says "Irfan’s opinion pieces and book reviews have been published in over 15 national, metropolitan and regional newspapers in Australia, New Zealand and Brunei." So it is not merely metropolitan papers. Finally, you do not need to insert the disparaging editorial "claimed" about Yusuf's remarks on Bishop, it is clear in context that the quote is from Yusuf, and if it isn't, then put a neutral word like "said". Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

1) As it relates to Bishop, I don't think it's right to assert she "marginalised a key faith sector" unless you have some proof she did, it's a claim from Yusuf. I don't have an issue with its inclusion I just don't think his contentious view should presented as a fact, it's Yusuf's description of his political foe and should be accurately recorded as such.

2) The source I have provided has Yusuf claiming fifteen major metropolitan newspapers. You have another source which sounds broader than that. Either way it is a dubious claim in his case as it probably means he'd have to have been published at some point in all Australian, New Zealand and Brunei metropolitan newspapers. I doubt that's the case. I have checked the Newstext database (available online) and it simply doesn't support his claim. There are only the Sydney Morning Herald, Financial Review, Canberra Times, The Age and West Australian not covered in that database. Nor does a Google search support his claim. The article previously read "a number" of newspapers which seemed much safer ground than fifteen. It's not a big deal but I am troubled about the quality of the source you've used, I think the number should be removed and a more likely to be accurate description like "a number" or "a large number" or something like that. The question is do you have a source other than the author himself, so far it seems you don't. Because of that the number really should go. If you can't produce a credible source, I'll be removing it. I refer you to WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB and WP:REDFLAG which makes it pretty clear that the exceptional claim made here - supported only by the author's self-description - can't stand. Please review these policies before reverting again. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) it's reported as a quote. As I said, if you want to flag in the text that it's a quote (beyond quote marks and context) fine, but don't editorialise.

2) The second source obviously derives from the first, and is inaccurately summarising it in that respect. What you are doing in looking in Newstext is deriving a conclusion not available from any other sources, namely that the author's claim may not be correct; and that is original research which is not permissible. (If you find an up-to-date source that says something contradictory, that's different - that we can take into account.) By the way, publishing in 15 newspapers is not an "exceptional" claim for a reasonably well-known social commentator who has appeared on TV and been published in major newspapers (certainly not in the WP:REDFLAG sense which applies primarily to scientific fringe theories). Ergo in the absence of any source challenging the fact, we must rely on the one we have. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN. PS WP:SPS does not apply; WP:SELFPUB does, which permits this. Rd232 ^talk 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

1) In that case, I think the quote will probably have to come out as it adds little.

2) I don't agree that it's obvious one derives from the other. They both derive from the source and is an exceptional claim covered by WP:REDFLAG. Is there a part of that policy that subsstantiates your statement it only applies to "scientific fringe theories"? Not that I have seen. As for original research claim, that's not the case, I have merely questioned the number of publications you've put in. You have failed to produce a reliable source substantiating an exceptional claim. Until you do, I see no reason to include what cannot be verified. In the United States, 15 newspapers might not be much of a claim because there are hundreds of them, that isn't the case in Australia, hence my suspicion that it's unverifiable self-promotion that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Please find a reliable source or leave it out. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're just repeating the arguments I've criticised. Rd232 ^talk 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources

Source In Question: Irfan Yusuf's self-written Online Opinion page

Question: Is this source a reliable source for the assertion that 15 newspapers have published his work?

• Author::This Online Opinion site publishes the work of a wide variety of authors, is a vehicle for self-publishing with author's descriptions written by the authors themselves.
• Publication: Are facts checked or claims verified on that site? No, it's a vehicle for self-publishing, much like a collection of blogs or opinion articles.
• Peer Review:The claims made in the self-description are not peer reviewed.
• Viewership: There is no proof of viewership.
• Staff:: The self-description is solely written and maintained by Yusuf.

My concern is that the source cannot be verified and has clearly come from the author himself not backed by any reliable third-party publications. I have attempted to verify the claims by looking for other sources and even just sanity-checking them in Google and elsewhere and have found nothing that supports his claim. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This source is the most recent one on the issue[17] Hopefully this resolves it. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(a) it's less specific; (b) there's no evidence it's more recent. Rd232 ^talk 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Flagged at WP:RSN. Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is more specific, naming the actual newspapers and it is the most recent, note the fact it it lists articles published as recently as 23 April and that when you click to his "full bio" from that 23 April article it leads you back to that page. It couldn't be clearer. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK it's more recent. But it doesn't contradict the previous claim. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It lists six newspapers, not fifteen. I'm not sure how the contradiction could be any clearer! --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What sort of logic is that?? It lists 6 major papers, the other cites 15 major and regional. However, I just came back to this page to say never mind, the 6 major papers claim is more useful, so I'm fine with using that. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought the logic was pretty sound and a reasonable compromise. Aside from the occasional assumption of bad faith I think we've progressed the article considerably and I'm glad you got involved as you did. I don't have that much more to add to the article at this stage, although I think his book is out next month so I'll be sure to get hold of a copy and update the article if there's anything noteworthy in it, as I suspect there will be. Cheers, it's been fun. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over the article content

• It was suggested the sentence saying Yusuf "came to believe in sharia law and an Islamic form of government" while studying at a madrassah is inaccurate because he was 6 years old at the time. And that "as a teenager, he was what he describes in jest as an "Islamo-fascist".
• That the publication dates contradict the assertion about "uncovered meat" remarks. And that he didn't accuse The Australian newspaper of conducting an "editorial lynching" of Hilaly, and that there is a comment authored by Yusuf which appeared in Crikey and which actually explains the centext of Yusuf's remark.
• That Bishop accused Yusuf of being a bomb thrower, a statement that can be interpreted as calling him a terrorist.
• That since the accusation of innaccuracies, Yusuf has published a number of Yusuf's opinion pieces with the Canberra Times.
• That Yusuf has been attending the feet-washing ceremony since 2006.

Are there reliable sources to support these assertions? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Removed NPOV tag, given that there's been no discussion raised on that. Also re-entered the information CoM deleted, seems not to like, but has failed to justify its removal despite it being well-sourced.

2) The first CoM point about sourcing is dealt with in the article. Please check the references before asking about them. They speak for themselves.

3) I don't understand the next point.

4) Bishop's claims are well-sourced as are Yusuf's.

5) I don't know whether there's a source indicating that the Canberra Times has published his work since the Pipe's controversy.

6) I only found one source relating to the feet-washing ceremony and included that. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

IN GOOD FAITH 27.5.2008

JENNY BROCKIE: Irfan, you're an Australian Muslim, you began your education in Australia and then you attended a madrassa in Pakistan. There were a lot of twists and turns in your education after that - tell us a little bit about those twists and turns.

IRFAN YUSUF: After being in a primary school in Pakistan during school hours and then madrassa before and after school...

JENNY BROCKIE: What did that mean in terms of your views then in exploring theocratic Islam, where did you end up? What did you end up thinking and believing?

IRFAN YUSUF: I guess what I really believed in was that you know, you had to have God in government...

JENNY BROCKIE: So you ended up believing in sharia law or believing in an Islamic State?

IRFAN YUSUF: Yes. I guess what I believed in was that you had to have God had to be in government in some way.

JENNY BROCKIE: So you were believing in an Islamic state, though, in the idea of an Islamic state?

IRFAN YUSUF: I guess, yeah. That was part of my exploration.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'm interested in talking about this, because, as you know, there's been fierce community opposition to the establishment of some Islamic schools here in Australia for fear of radicalisation. Can you understand that concern?

IRFAN YUSUF: Not really, because from what I've seen, I mean, I've acted for them, I've seen the way they manage their industrial relations issues and what have you, and from what I've seen is that they really go tend to go, I think, almost go overboard in separating religious studies from the rest of the curriculum.

From the transcript of the television programme on which Irfan Yusuf appeared on SBS Television. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The source cleary says "after". If you have a source disputing the author's own account that he was 6, please provide it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is difficult to comprehend but I'll do my best. The source clearly identifies the author's view, I'm not really even sure why this is so contentious but we can only be led by what the source material tells us. In relation the "author's own account", what on Earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting the author was six years old when he gave the TV interview where he explained his views? Because that's simply not correct, as it appeared quite recently and the author was born in 1969. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The source DOES NOT say he came to hold those views while a young boy in Pakistan. It says "after". It's contentious for the same reason that your other misleading and innacurate edits are controversial. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to re-read what he said. "IRFAN YUSUF: After being in a primary school in Pakistan during school hours and then madrassa before and after school...JENNY BROCKIE: What did that mean in terms of your views then in exploring theocratic Islam, where did you end up? What did you end up thinking and believing? IRFAN YUSUF: I guess what I really believed in was that you know, you had to have God in government... etc." I don't think there's any dispute about the ordinary meaning of those words.

Your assertion "it's contentious for the same reason that your other misleading and inaccurate edits are controversial" does remind one of the joke Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? A: Fish. If there's a serious discussion to be had about the article, the sources and all that, I'm happy to have it with CoM and anyone else but it's made difficult if arguments are made without reference to sources and without an underlying assumption of good faith. My patience has been sorely tested on this and yet I will keep assuming good faith on CoM's part because without that, Wikipedia wouldn't work. I hope that sentiment is reciprocated. I say that because - as a result of the approach taken by CoM - I've procrastinated over reading Yusuf's book and incorporating anything relevant in the article because I dread dealing with the approach seen above. I very much doubt CoM's intention is to remove another editor's enthusiasm for contributing but that has been the effect on occasion. It's a good article, it could be better and I intend to do my best to make it so. I hope CoM has the same aspiration. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources

CofM [18] questions whether a source contains a quote but it seems didn't notice the quote s/he disputes that is clearly contained in this paragraph[19]:

Immediately after the results of the ballot were announced, I found myself standing next to Tony Abbott. He was just getting past the 5th second of his 'Irfan, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate' when one of Howard's more geriatric campaign volunteers came screaming: 'This is disgraceful! Wait till I tell our future Prime Minister about this!!' She then looked at me and asked why I was at the pre-selection, before telling me how much I reminded her of 'that Aborigine who my great grandfather shot dead for trespassing onto his property.'

There were no other remaining questions about sources I think. If so please point them out. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo op

Just because the reference says that "photo opportunities will include" doesn't mean that the whole thing was a photo op. Are you going to call Midnight Mass from the Vatican a photo op, too? Plenty of cameras there...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irfan Yusuf. 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/20110218064245/http://www.nceis.unimelb.edu.au/event/conference-08-irfan-yusuf-imams-expert-witnesses to http://www.nceis.unimelb.edu.au/event/conference-08-irfan-yusuf-imams-expert-witnesses
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519093523/http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=441 to http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=441

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Irfan Yusuf. 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/20090504134957/http://newmatilda.com/contributor/2952 to http://newmatilda.com/contributor/2952
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215120357/http://www.newmatilda.com/contributor/2952 to http://www.newmatilda.com/contributor/2952

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)