Talk:Rifqa Bary controversy

This article remains a travesty

This article still contains outright lies and "factual" statements without evidence.

And so it states that "On September 14, 2009, a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family." -- even though no court ruled in any such manner.

And so it is states that "Law enforcement investigations in both states found no credible evidence of physical or verbal abuse by her parents or that her parents had threatened her life or well-being" -- even though no evidence of Ohio law enforcement investigation into any alleged abuses is provided, and as far as I know does not exist, as there appears to have been only an investigation of Rifqa's disappearance in Ohio and not one of any of her allegations of abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.54.227 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Notability and need for neutrality

I have put this article up because the story is drawing a very large amount of attention and is being covered as a signifier in the culture wars, not as an incident involving a single teenager. However, it is important to remember in AFD's that even some single incidents merit articles, it is a matter of scale and impact. Probably, in such a case, the AFD should be put on noticeboards and kept up long enough for several editors to weigh in.Historicist (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly admonish editors coming to this page, especially new editors and editors who have storng feelings on the subject, to try to keep it neutral if in no other way, at least from refraining from deleting material that puts the position of the other side in the dispute.Historicist (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That said, the article needs more details about the legal battle and other matters.Historicist (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just be sure by being neutral you don't end up only listening to liberal news stuff. We need to take this from all perspectives, Christian, Muslim, and others. Here is a Christian view of it, and he believes that Rifqa is in danger(he was at most if not all of the court hearings). [1] --Ellington The Fool (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the point though. The view cannot be Christian, OR Muslim, or Buddhist, it has to be neutral. A neutral, and unbiased source on the threat to rifqa's life would have to be the FDLE report. [2]

Why does the FDLE Report *have* to be the "neutral, unbiased source"? Because it supports the Bary family?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.33.138 (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Mr. Bary states that he did pick up Rifqa's Laptop to throw it but denies that he threatened to hit her with it, due to the cost of the laptop." I just read the report. Mr. Bary decided to not throw the laptop because of its cost. He never intended to hit his daughter with it (as the article suggested) but to throw and damage the laptop.68.106.246.74 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Culture Clash as oppose to US vs Sharia law

In reference to the edit [3] by an anonymous editor. There exist sources such as Time magazine which call this a cultural war. Furthermore the reports of law enforcement agencies are not "claims" the word "claim" is a WP:WTA Word to avoid here on Wikipedia. It implies that what was said is unreliable. It has it's uses but not in this case. Please bother to register and discuss before making changes to an article which due to media exposure is so important to the wikipedia project.

Present a source, which is not a blog (see WP:RS for why blogs are not acceptable sources here) which calls this an issue of Sharia VS US law. Then write it in the article. That's how it works here. The burden is on you to prove your claims.--Hfarmer (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, IPs have a right not to register. IP editing does have disadvantages, but unless you get the page semi-protected, they have as much right to edit as others.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

True. That's why I requested semiprotection. On the day of the next hearing this place is going to be flooded with IP users wanting to edit. Wanting to fill this page with links to their favorite anti/pro Islam blogs or whatever. WP dosen't need that. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Move to: Rifqa Bary Conversion Affair.

I am not wedded to that name. However this article is not a bio of Rifqa. She is not yet by herself notable. However this affair has been adjudged notable by the community so be it. The article should be about all aspects of the affiar, as it is now. Any thoughts? --Hfarmer (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of content

In a recent edit, the following content was removed:

Main article: Apostasy in Islam

Claims on the punishment of apostasy have been central to the debate on the custody of Fathima Rifqa Bary. For example John Guandolo, former FBI agent, criticized the FDLE report based in part on his understanding that Sharia mandates honor killing for apostasy. He also states his belief that the parent's attorneys, provided by CAIR, are really members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Modern Islamic scholars hold that apostasy in Sharia was used as a political-religious tool to punish treason against the state and is no longer valid under modern conditions, where no state is based solely on common Muslim faith. Under traditional Islamic law, however, an apostate may be given up to three days while in incarceration to repent and accept Islam again, and if not the apostate is to be killed without any reservations. In the period of the early Islamic Caliphate, apostasy was considered treason, and was accordingly treated as a capital offense; death penalties were carried out under the authority of the Caliph.

Sharia law is ultimately based on what Muslims belive are the teachings of God as found in the Qur'an, hadith and sunnah. On the issue of apostasy the Hadith conflict , in one Muhamad says "'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'", another says "The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases,". He lists adultery, fighting (militarily) against the Muslim community, and murder.. In the Quran "Verily, We sent down to you [O Muhammad] the Book [Qur'an] for mankind in truth. So, whosoever goes astray, he goes astray to his own loss. And you [O Muhammad] are not a guardian over them. (The Quran, Az-Zumar 39:41)

Medieval Muslim scholars (eg Sufyan al-Thawri) and modern (eg Hasan at-Turabi), have argued that the hadith used to justify execution of apostates should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general. These scholars argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient confirmation of harsh punishment; they regard apostasy as a serious crime, but undeserving of the death penalty. Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar, writes that punishment for apostasy was part of Divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (see Itmaam-i-hujjat), hence, he considers it a time-bound command and no longer punishable. Jamal Badwi a professor of religion at St Mary's University quoting Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi "The benefit of doubt must be given and only those in legitimate authority and knowledge may deal with such situation as no one is allowed to take the law in their own hands."

The 2006 case of Abdul Rahman is an example of how apostasy is treated by the most radical of muslim states. He was tried and sentenced to death by a court in Afganistan for conversion to Christianity in Afganistan 16 years prior. After a worldwide public outcry, and especially considering the ongoing Western support of, and presence in, the nation of Aghanistan, Rahman was released from jail and was granted asylum in Italy in 2007.

Is there a reason why this has been removed? And if it has been removed, is this information already in the article which is already in Apostasy in Islam? And if not, shouldn't it be added. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a one-sided misrepresentation of the Apostasy in Islam article. Better to give a "See also" link and let people actually read about the diversity of opinion in the Muslim community. Many Muslims do not follow Sharia or do not follow any interpretation that requires or sanctions capitol punishment for apostasy, and no sources have been provided to show that the Bary family does.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Title

Is it really necessary for the title of the article to be so long? Since the issue resolves around one girl I think it would be more efficient to rename the article to be simply “Fathima Rifqa Bary” rather than “Fathima Rifqa Bary conversion and custody controversy”. -- jfry3 (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well any page move, should be done with consensus of all active editors. I for one could understand the need to reduce the article title link. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point to making the title the girl's name since there's nothing notable about her outside of this controversy. I'm not categorically opposed to shortening, but I think the title needs to reflect the focus on the controversy.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how about the "Fathima Rifqa Bary controversy"? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would concede to "Fathima Rifqa Bary controversy" -- jfry3 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are section edits missing?

Does anyone know why the section edit links are missing on this article?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it has been hidden by the template on the right hand side of the page? I know normally the edit link is then moved left of infoboxes, or upwards if images, when they conflict, but as you have clearly seen something abnormal appears to be occuring. Hmmm. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

JRSpriggs already tried that, but it didn't work.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Might want to contact an administrator then, maybe there is some coding from a template used on the page or something, that is hiding those useful edit links. Normally small articles don't have edit links for each section, but those are normally stubs, and this article clearly is not. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be fixed now. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit-missing culprit

{{Portal:Christianity/box-header|''Christianity topics''|Template:Christianityfooter|}} appears to be it. No idea why.- Sinneed 06:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

The quotes at the end of this article are a clear insertion of bias. They should be removed and replaced with NPOV summary. 74.215.255.82 (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed this down, but while their positions can be stated without extreme wording, and hopefully now are, these are their positions. I would say that other major positions would ideally be presented for wp:BALANCE but I have no interest in pursuing it.- Sinneed 18:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Public Debate section

The section is presently unbalanced towards one side of the debate. Other referenced points of debate should be added to the section so that one side isn't given undue weight. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This section needs to be balanced. A debate is between two people with two different viewpoints. This only shows one viewpoint. Blooddraken (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

76.167.227.243 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)typical pro-muslim bias in wikipedia. the public debate section contains 2 quotes which are both favorable to islam because they diminish the idea that rifqa barry is legitimately under death due to islamic doctrine and the fact that, according to the world health organization, there are 5,000 muslim honor killings annually http://www.feminist.com/violence/spot

i am SICK SICK SICK of seeing this insidious pro-muslim bias infiltrating pretty every wikipedia article that relates to islam in some way

wikipedias existing rules are not sufficient to prevent muslims from manipulating wikipedia as an islamic propaganda tool, while staying comfortably within wikipedia best practices

You suffer from a case of illogical argument. An encyclopedia must represent the major views of a public debate, not just the ones some people may or may not agree with. Your argument that, because SOME Muslims perform honor killings that ALL do is highly illogical. You provide no citation that actually addresses this case directly, and because the article is balanced does not mean it is biased. If we removed the perspectives of Muslims, then the article would be anti-Muslim. Lastly, it is a mistake to think that this was a Christian vs. Muslim debate; I point you to the fact that Rifqa's parents' first attorney, Craig McCarthy, was an evangelical Christian. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Pending immigration status?

There's currently a claim on the page that the return of Rifqa Bary to Ohio depended on immigration papers being provided. I have only ever seen the immigration status of the parents brought up as an issue in more biased sources. In fact the article provided as a reference for this makes no mention of immigration status whatsoever: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/crime/orl-bk-rifqa-bary-ohio-court-102709,0,3435609.story —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.232.12 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have found a source from the same webpage regarding the immigration status thing.

• Amy L. Edwards (23 October 2009). "As deadline looms, questions arise over Rifqa Bary's immigration status". Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved 9 November 2009.
• MEREDITH HEAGNEY (16). "County to have custody of runaway convert". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved 9 November 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

So really, bias sources? No worries, I have re-added the statement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Biased and False

This article is just way too biased and false, in particular the section on Law enforcement investigations. It is untrue that "Two independent investigations in Ohio and Florida found no credible evidence that her life was in danger" -- no agency ever stated that the girl's testimony and fears are not credible. And where is any report of an Ohio investigation that was "independent" of FDLE? Sounds made up. It is blatantly false that "a Florida court ruled that it found no credible evidence that Bary's life or well-being had been threatened by her family" -- there's no such court conclusion what-so-ever, otherwise there would be no case anymore. The Florida court simply transfered the case to Ohio, as was inevitable. It is ludicrous to say that cheerleading pictures displayed AFTER Rifqa ran away somehow prove her parents were well aware of what she does during cheerleading; Rifqa said clearly in her first interview that NOW her parents do have photos, but did not before. FDLE did not even ask how long have those cheerleading pictures displayed in the apartment. This whole section just reeks of bias. This entire article should be rewritten by someone with an ounce of honesty or just deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

if you have any reliable sources for any of this, i'd be happy to work it into the article.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire point of my comment was that statements not supported by any reliable sources should be DELETED. In other words much of the entire article needs to be deleted. At this point it's mostly fantasy rather than facts. I already pointed out some of the falsehoods. There are statements that have NO support in any of the reliable sources listed. (86.49.74.114)

birth date

Can we get a birth date? The article just says that she's a 17-year-old. That obviously won't work. Bob A (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

added. it's August 10, 2010 according to the associated press.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Biased Chris Capoccia

This article is obviously controlled by a biased user unwilling to admit any corrections. I'm not a registered user but someone capable of basic impartiality on this topic needs to semi-protect it and delete all the nonsense.

Note that Capoccia even undid my simple change of all the 3 words "claimed" to "said". Capoccia justified this by writing that it is properly used for "opinions that are not based in hard facts and are disputed by opposing viewpoints." So Rifqa saying that her father threatened to kill her is de facto labeled by Capoccia "an opinion" not based on hard fact -- apparently because Capoccia KNOWS it never happened. On the other hand he's OK with "Muslim sources SAY it is motivated by Islamophobia" because that, apparently, must be based on hard fact and is not disputed by anyone.

And of course Rifqa's parents never CLAIM anything per Capoccia because whatever they say must be hard fact and somehow Capoccia knows that.

This is precisely why the subjective term "claimed" should be used very carefully and only when applied the same across the article. Capoccia used it here to simply impose his own bias on the readers. He has no clue what being objective means.

Again, please some registered user with an ounce of honesty clean this up and protect it from the zealots on both sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.74.114 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any seconds to this opinion of my bias? Or can we remove the tags in the article??  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Chris Capoccia, is being biased, however, the other editor maybe overly cautious. If a reliable source can verify a quote or statement that the subject at the center of the controversy said that her father threatened to kill her, then changing claimed to said would be a reasonable action. However, if no verification can be found, it is reasonable to err on the side of caution, and leave it as claimed until such verification in a reliable source can be found. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The ruling of the Florida Ct on 9/14/09 was that Ohio had jurisdiction of the case, NOT that there was no credible threat to Rifqa's safety. As a child protection attorney, I consider that an important distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.182.35 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

maybe so, but it doesn't matter because we're talking about the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Investigative Summary OR-73-1741.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So it is OK for you to LIE and just falsely assert the court ruled something it never did? You still have absolutely no clue what it means to be truthful.

Speaking of truthful, when you quoted FDLE as stating that "FDLE conducted a thorough investigation of this situation", you willfully deleted the rest of the sentence, namely: "and has not developed any information to support any allegations of criminal activity in Florida, where our jurisdiction resides." Not in Ohio, in FLORIDA. Of course why not delete any information you dislike, since this entire article is an exercise in misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.40.145 (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I often replace "claimed" with "said" for precisely that reason. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

Christmas news

don't have time to integrate the info from two good news articles right now. i'll just list them here. maybe i'll get to them soon or maybe someone else can build the article with this info:

• Heagney, Meredith (December 25, 2009). "Guardian to review Rifqa's mail". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved December 25, 2009.
• Heagney, Meredith (December 25, 2009). "Affidavit: Couple told not to house Rifqa". The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved December 25, 2009.

  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well of course WP has no opinion on whether these are "good news" or "bad news" - and I am surprised anyone else thinks they are good news - the first article shows that more people took actions that would be at least legally ill advised even if well meant, and are maybe at risk of legal consequences, the second that that while in the courts agreement has been reached on a couple of issues where the ruling was almost certain, "the attorneys frequently file motions on minute details of Rifqa's life and activities" which is only good news for the legal fees, unless of course the hope is that the wrangling keeps the girl away from her parents until she becomes 18. Rich Farmbrough, 16:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

i meanth "good" in terms of reliable sources, not whether they were some feel-good story.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph pulled - with reasons

Muslim sources say it is motivated by Islamophobia;

Unsourced - stated further down with sources - bad structure with or without following chunk

Christian sources

"Sources" but only cites one source - an interview that is with a more political than religious figure

say they fear for Bary's life

Source states she is being endangered - not the same

because they claim Islamic Sharia law mandates honor killing for apostasy,

Not in source

even though the FDLE investigation found no evidence that the Bary family would follow Sharia law

Sythesis and arguing against the source.

and Sunni Hanafi and Shi'a scholars only advocate imprisonment for female converts.

Interesting, possibly usable statement.

Refs

Rich Farmbrough, 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

Interesting that the only "interesting" statement was the one which supports a anti-muslim point of view. --Hfarmer (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good News for Rifqa Bary

Rifqa doesn't have to go back home to her parents. She was declared a dependent of Ohio. Mr. and Mrs. Bary did the right thing because if there had been a dependency case they wouldn't have won. All Rifqa had to was admit that she broke the rules when she ran away from home. It's important to add Rifqa's brothers, where she was Baptized, what Church she attends, and how old she was when she became a Christian becuase Wikipedia doesn't have that information. Rifqa's WikiIslam page has information that Wikipedia doesn't have. Also at the end of her History Section I put two commas by accident. For proof that Rifqa is a member of The Korean United Methodist Church and that she was Baptized in Big Walnut Creek at Hoover Dam Park y'all can visit http://www.loonwatch.com/2009/10/michael-kruse-the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/ and http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/the-life-rifqa-bary-ran-away-from/1042759 . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Public Debate

Come on guys, don't you think the three opinions expressed in the "public debate" section are a little aligned and only represent one side? All three of the opinions state one thing: You're a paranoid nut job if you dare insult Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.35.93.145 (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• All three are from an islamic point of view, if there's going to be three from one point of view there should be three from the opposing point of view. JMHO --74.167.7.205 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"All three"? how do you count? I count 5. Only 2 are Muslim:

1. Tim Padgett, a respected journalist; not a Muslim http://www.wabash.edu/news/displaystory.cfm?news_ID=2636
2. Meredith Heagney, Faith & Values reporter for The Columbus Dispatch, the biggest newspaper in the Bary family's hometown. Also not a Muslim.
3. Muhammad Musri, president of a Muslim advocacy group in Florida
4. Harry Coverston, an Episcopal priest and instructor at the University of Central Florida http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ncoverst/CV.htm
5. Hany Saqr, of the Noor Islamic Cultural Center

  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 09:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion to delete "Islam and apostasy" section

I say that even with citations, the entire section reeks of original research; will more knowledgeable editors consider deleting the entire section?--Kencaesi (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

done.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Title

It's highly unusual to have an article named like this. If Bary is notable enough to have an article, then the article should simply be under her name. Gigs (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

A large portion of this article concerning events in Bary's life since the controversy (being diagnosed with uterine cancer, faith healing, turning 18) is completely unsourced. The material isn't negative as such, so I didn't remove it on sight, but I've collected it in one section at the bottom of the article. This content does still need sourcing, and if sources can't be found, it should be removed. Robofish (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Court Documents

To the editors,

My name is Rachel Masri and I am currently working at the law offices of John Stemberger. I have several court documents and sworn affidavits from Rifqa which I am sure will enhance this piece regarding the legal battle and the claims on both sides of the case. The reason I'm posting here is that I have observed the numerous edits and re-edits that have taken place, and wanted to know if a well-referenced edit which is written neutrally, but which has come from this office, would be considered inherently biased. Like I said, the documents I have are official court documents and there would be no unreferenced material added. Some insight into the standard of neutrality for Wikipedia would be extremely helpful. Thank you for your time and your contributions to Wikipedia.

Rachel — Preceding unsigned comment added by RachelJalila (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rachel, thanks for asking here. It would almost certainly be seen as inappropriate for someone from the office of the subject's lawyer to edit the article, see WP:COI. As for court documents being used to write the article, that would also be undesirable. Wikipedia as a tertiary source, should referenced to reliable secondary sources, see WP:RS. Court documents are primary sources and should generally be avoided. --Daniel 16:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Rachel; Leivick is correct about the need for reliable secondary sources. The fact that this article has been biased, at times to the point of being a travesty, is in part due to writers ignoring that requirement. Now as to the documents you mention, your office could place copies of them up on the web and then they could be referred to here, as long as it is sufficiently clear that these are indeed real official documents. Even better would be if you or Stemberger wrote a short explanation of why these documents are relevant and publish it somewhere on the web -- at that point that could be referenced here too as long as there would be no reason to doubt it really comes from your office. In other words a reliable secondary source need not be the traditional media -- if a sheriff's office places an arrest report on its official web site, that report (and a link to it) can be mentioned in Wikipedia even if the media has paid no attention to it. [ Shores of bohemia (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC) ]

Cancer?!? Say wha?

Any truth to this, if not, can we Please remove it?

Rifqa was diagnosed with advanced Uterine cancer.

Thanks.

Chuckk8cpa (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I removed the cancer part of this entry. There was zero reference for this, and so, it's gone. If you going to talk smack; cite your sources about her.

Chuckk8cpa (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Chuckk8cpa, has it ever occurred to you to type "rifqa cancer" into google?

Shores of bohemia (talk) 03:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rifqa Bary controversy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120616061119/http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=126605&d=21&m=9&y=2009 to http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=126605&d=21&m=9&y=2009

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)