Talk:Irfan Yusuf

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The Australian Parliament Library database 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)
thread_title:  Question about SBS transcript 

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

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

text: 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: . 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Rd232 edits

message: Sources that Clarke threatened Yusuf with defamation  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. 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  "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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: BLP

message: :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)
replies: text:  This source is the most recent one on the issue Hopefully this resolves it. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  (a) it's less specific; (b) there's no evidence it's more recent. Rd232 talk 13:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Flagged at WP:RSN. Rd232 talk 13:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  OK it's more recent. But it doesn't contradict the previous claim. Rd232 talk 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-published sources 

message: CofM  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:
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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo op 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)