Talk:Yassmin Abdel-Magied

Dubious assertion by Abdel-Magied

Abdel-Magied said that it says in Islam, "you follow the law of the land in which you are on". Where in the Quran and / or Hadiths does this assertion come from? Speedrailsm (talk) 03:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick google search turned this up for me: "O you who believe, obey God and obey the messenger and those entrusted amongst you" (Verse 4:59, available here). This verse seems to generally be interpreted in line with what Abdel-Magied stated. Also, I would say that whether or not what she said is dubious, it's not dubious that she did, in fact, say it. Sheavsey33 (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Sahih International translation Q4:59 > O you who have believed, (1) obey Allah and (2) obey the Messenger and (3) those in authority among you. And if you disagree over anything, refer it to (4) Allah and the (5) Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result. https://quran.com/4/59

The Abdel-Magied dubious translation Q4:59 > you follow the law of the land in which you are on

In this context (1) The obedience verse and (2) who are they who are in authority > the Uli al-Amr? are relevant. Speedrailsm (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick google search turned this up for me: "The command 'ati' (obey) is not placed independently before the 'olil-amr'. And anyone who knows even basic Arabic grammar will confirm with you that because the word 'ati' (obey) is not placed before 'olil-amr' (those entrusted with authority), then it becomes a 'mashroot' (condition), that you have to obey those entrusted with authority amongst you, ONLY IF THEY OBEY ALLAH AND THE MESSENGER!" http://quransmessage.com/forum/index.php?topic=348.0 Speedrailsm (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This article has a section on Abdel-Magied's trip to the Middle East. The section is about a topic that has been recently headlining in the Australian as part of an ongoing smear campaign by the paper against Abdel-Magied. The section writes "The Australian cited examples of serious female repression in each of the above locations." which is not a statement specifically about her tour and seeks to demean her actions and insight feelings of injustice among Australian taxpayers (rightly or wrongly).

Further to this discussion, her most recent actions, relating to her appearance on Q&A (2017-02-13), although simple quotations from Abdel-Magied, are referenced with highly emotionally charged and strongly biased news articles, again, mostly from the Australian.

We should be holding off quoting the Australian in relation to Abdel-Magied while they are focussing on her in such a derogatory manner, unless to specifically highlight it.

AntGiraffe (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia not the Abdel-Magied website Speedrailsm (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Note, also, that the content is attributed WP:INTEXT, and that there are absolutely no issues with WP:BLPVIO. We don't cherry pick content to suit our own POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Abdel-Magied has said, "Sharia is about mercy, it's about kindness". "Women are treated well in Islam". "Islam is the most feminist" religion. Thousands of words have been published in RSs debating her views. Is Wikipedia to be censored from presenting rebuttals of Abdel-Magied positions? Have just added one such rebuttal of Abdel-Magied by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. (they obviously have similar geographic backgrounds) Speedrailsm (talk) 04:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

If there is well documented, scholarly debate regarding her views as a public figurehead for Sharia law, a section on criticism is in order (so long as it is taken from WP:RS, is not WP:GEVAL, and discusses her views specifically]]. In fact, as she is only a de facto spokesperson for anything to do with Islam (unless she is a theologian, which I don't believe to be the case), she only speaks as a lay person, meaning that any such debates are not restricted to theological experts but to any reliable sources examining her rhetoric. The only restriction is that such content should adhere to WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION. As has been noted previously, this is an encyclopaedic resource, not a fan page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

"Trip to the Middle East" para

There seems to be no reason to include the "Trip to the Middle East" paragraph. As written, it's basically a WP:COATRACK slur which implies that there was something dodgy with the trip without actually noting any substantive issues (complete with references to the non-reliable source Daily Mail). This appears to be a product of the tabloid media and The Australian's campaigning against Abdel-Magied. I note that this material has included a sentence on women's rights in the countries she visited provided without any context, as well as a sentence in the previous section claiming that she was criticised in a change.org petition without a reference. None of this is in line with WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The last update was intended to build on the issues raised by previous editors. I understood the 'remove coatrack attack' related only to the The places Yassmin Abdel-Magied visited and how women are treated there citation. While I have paywall access to Australian newspapers, the Daily Mail was cited ONLY as an aid for Wiki readers without that access.

This is an issue of real concern to a many Australians. It is not some 'tabloid media campaigning'. The trip, the cost - and the DFAT hesitancy in divulging that cost, the (taxpayer-funded) promotion of her book, the female-oppressive countries visited are all significant. Abdel Magied's 'rose-coloured-glasses' observations raised fair and legitimate criticism.

I believe the following is well within WP:BLP including WP:BLPSTYLE. The ARTICLE is not WP:COATRACK. It provides an important encyclopedic inclusion for 'Yassmin Abdel-Magied'. The Daily Mail is not cited.

____________________________

The Australian newspaper reported that in late 2016 Abdel-Magied visited a number of Middle Eastern locations including Riyadh Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi UAE, Dubai UAE, Doha Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Ramallah Palestine, Israel, Cairo Egypt and Sudan. The purpose of the trip was to promote Australia and to promote her book.

The trip was funded by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), "from existing budgets". DFAT initially declined to reveal the cost of the trip. Subsequently the Attorney General, Senator George Brandis said the cost for the travel allowance and flights was $11,485.

Abdel-Magied was criticised on returning to Australia, after visiting "some of the world’s most [female] repressive Islami­c regimes", for extolling the rights and freedoms of Muslim women.

Speedrailsm (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be hard finding neutral reporting in Australia, but there is certainly a controversy over the trip: according to SBS, "News Corp columnists Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt branded Ms Abdel-Magied an “apologist” for Islam – slamming a government-funded tour of the Middle East last year." It also says, "More than 13,000 people have signed the petition calling for the ABC to “condemn and fire” the Sudanese-born Australian over comments she made in Q&A last week." StAnselm (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

After a week - that is a two to one consensus. Reinstate information on trip to the Middle East - but remove detail and criticism of it. Speedrailsm (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Lede and opening sentence

Hi! I've noticed that the opening sentence for this article keeps being altered. I was wondering if it would be better to have a discussion here? I think that mentioning her occupation is probably the most WP:NPOV to start the article, rather than inserting her religion which is already in her infobox (this is similar to other Australia public figures). I think if her religion is mentioned it should be done so in the second or so sentence of the lede, and/or in personal life. It's been edited quite a lot in the last few days as well as this year, so it would be good to have a discussion and consensus around it. Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Being a Sunni Muslim is a much more significant Abdel-Magied-distinctive, than the other roles and activities currently mentioned in the lede. This fact should go in the lede. Many RSs describe Abdel-Magied as a "Muslim activist". Re her religion "is already in her infobox"  ??? Her religion is not in the Infobox as | religion = is not a Template:Infobox_person, parameter. Speedrailsm (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Boopitydoopityboop and Speedrailsm: Please see this RfC. The parameter was removed from general biography infoboxes for good reason, hence I've removed the entire obsolete parameter in the article space infobox. There are specific templates for biographies for people who are notable for religious reasons (Christian, Muslim, etc.) at Category:People and person infobox templates. The parameter has only been retained where for general bios where WP:PAGEDECIDE has taken place in instances where the subject of the article is regarded to be a lay person whose notability is based exclusively on their religious activism, but there are no specific templates for the bio (i.e., evangelist Billy Graham); the 'reverend' Fred Nile; etc.). My understanding is that Yassmin Abdel-Magied's notability is not virtually exclusively for religious activism. It's an aspect of her ethnic background which is noted in the body of the article, but is WP:UNDUE for the infobox. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Abdel-Magied says, "first and foremost, I am a Muslim, Alhamdulillah". Many RSs describe Abdel-Magied as a "Muslim activist". Speedrailsm (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, Speedrailsm, but I feel that it is a spurious argument for what she is actually predominantly notable for. I see no problem with developing the body of the article to reflect her self-perception and positions taken by other RS. Bear in mind that Albert Einstein was an atheist, and numerous RSs discuss him as being Jewish. His biography, as well as that of countless other high profile notables, were what prompted the plethora of RfCs. Per PAGEDECIDE, it was understood to detract from his notability. As I have noted, it's merely my opinion that it is UNDUE for the infobox. I am open to further arguments from other editors on this matter as I am, ultimately, on the fence regarding the issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, that makes sense regarding the RfC. I think it would be more appropriate that the lede focuses on Abdel-Magied's profession which puts her in the public eye (the current lede, for example, rather than describing her as a "Sunni Muslim" which puts undue emphasis on her religious background). Boopitydoopityboop (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate ordering of sections and slanted opinions

Political and Religious Views, which includes a few manufactured and overblown controversies created by tabloid media, are not the most important thing about this person's life. In addition, views critical of a couple of things she's said are over-represented in this section, quoting from tabloid and right-wing press and opinion pieces. (For example, Andrew Bolt is hardly a mainstream news reporter and regarded as a joke by many, and was found to contravene the Australian Racial Discrimination Act in 2011.) In addition, some of the references lead to paywalls, which means that the information is not freely available to all who read Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the place for airing personal opinions about anyone, living or dead.

I would like to suggest that this section gets moved to the bottom, trimmed up and properly edited. Genmel (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have restructured and tidied up the entry considerably, attempting to retain neutrality and fact and removing a fair amount of irrelevant clutter which doesn't belong in a biographical entry. References remain (probably more than necessary) and people can Google if they want to read opinion pieces and tabloid press. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I have again done a swag of editing, after reading her book and adding page references where appropriate. I've also done a bit of reordering and renaming of sections, and created lists where it seems that the information is more legible that way. I have balked at attempting to summarise more of her personal life - her memoir is long and detailed and I am not going to have time to do any more at this point.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

controversy

Easier to make a talk page to avoid an edit war. Her comments about islam being the most feminist religion and Anzac day comments were widely view as controversial and even mocked by a plethora of columnists and tabloids. It wasn't just "in some quarters". Even left leaning media were surprised at her comments, as were many members of the audience when she made the feminist comment, who laughed. Let's give this due coverage shall we? the sources are innumerable. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

But we need a reliable source saying it is "widespread". Giving twenty references is not enough. Now this reference does indeed have "widespread outrage". StAnselm (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've tagged the relevant passage for WP:CITEKILL, but am sorely tempted to revert the change to the wording. Tabloids and op-ed pieces from unnamed columnists ≠ WP:RS. I suggest that at least one good source be found for the content. This is a WP:BLP, meaning that tabloid feeding frenzies are not encyclopaedic, and are certainly not 'due coverage' (Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, so I'm not even certain of what that observation actually means). I would, however, be amenable to "widespread outrage" per her interview. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy for the wording to be tweaked, but I feel the reaction was very much widespread, Magied has even suggested herself that she hasn't recovered from it and has aided in her decision to move to the UK. What's your suggestion as to the wording? Thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

There was also a substantial body of commentary in support of Abdel-Magied (arguing that she had a right to speak, criticising the criticism of her, agreeing with her, etc). If claims that she was the subject of "widespread" criticism were to be added, who was dealing this out and the other responses would also need to be noted per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. The sources for balanced coverage are easily available, and there is absolutely no excuse for not drawing on them. I note also that Abdel-Magied has also recently written a widely-discussed and freely available article on her experiences and why she's moving to the UK which isn't being drawn on: instead we get more hostile commentary sourced to conservative media outlets. I am seriously considering applying discretionary sanctions as authorised at WP:BLPDS to prevent further such edits. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, Nick-D, you are part of a content dispute and therefore involved. I don't think you should be the one to apply sanctions. StAnselm (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

With much respect in return, I disagree: my edits concerning this article have been to remove BLP violations, as is expected of admins. Please note the provisions at WP:BLPADMINS. I've just reverted your change per the above: we really can't say that her remarks "caused widespread outrage" - this doesn't accurately reflect the range of views expressed (and what's meant by "widespread" is unclear - was this among all Australians, newspaper commentators, etc?). The source provided here also attributes such outrage to "her controversial Anzac Day post". Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Applying sanctions because you disagree with someone's sourced edits seems like you're taking this very personally. Perhaps you better wait to hear other people's opinions. I don't think you can just simply state that it's all conservative media with a sweeping brush. some quarter implies a fringe, and we know that ain't true. would someone really leave the country if just a small fringe had criticised her? will revert back to this with better sourced material in due course. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggest "caused outrage in some quarter" and provided two solid quotes. Fair solution? outrage cannot be denied but as Nick-D has said she was defended by quite a few liberal sources too, so extent of "widespread" is still debatable. Alexandre8 (talk) 12:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

But Nick-D, you also added a BLP violation. You said her comments "caused controversy in some quarters". Well, there is nothing in the source provided that backs that up. It talks about controversy, but it doesn't say anything about "quarters". Maybe we should just say "caused controversy" and leave it at that. StAnselm (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions clearly says that admins must not "impose a sanction when involved". Actually, I think just the threat of sanctions in this case is very poor form for an admin as it's designed to bludgeon the discussion and let you get your way. StAnselm (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

No, Nick-D is not 'involved' in the sense you are implying. Feel free to check through all of his edits to the article: they relate purely to potential and actual WP:BLPVIO content. Please don't nit-pick issues and conflate WP:SYNTH with WP:NOTSYNTH in order to create the wrong impression as to actual involvement with the content of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

He is arguing for the content to be more balanced; that the article should comment on support as well as criticism. All that is fair enough, but it is quite clearly a content issue. If a valid sourced statement is included we don't normally remove it as a BLP violation because of inbalance - we add further content to balance it. In making edits and arguing in this way, Nick-D has certainly involved himself. StAnselm (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Essentially you're arguing for more News Corp Australia (WP:RS?) tabloid journalism - and the ilk - to be drawn on for balance. How is that justified per WP:BALASP? Again, this is a BLP, not the news or a WP:COATRACK. The way the content of this article is being developed, a reader might mistakenly understand her to be as notable as Pauline Hanson... which she is certainly not. Keeping BLPs proportionate to the IRL notability of the subject should be a matter of COMMONSENSE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a new article just posted to the ABC which is far more in keeping with the tone of an encyclopaedic resource like Wikipedia. The ABC is undoubtedly a reliable source, unlike the tabloid hysteria being drawn on to pad out the 'controversy' issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

As Iryna notes, all of my edits to this article have been to remove BLP violations (noting that this topic sits way outside my main focus on military history). This and reminding editors of the need for balanced coverage is entirely consistent with what's expected of an uninvolved admin concerning a BLP article. I'm hardly expected to pretend that I haven't seen different types of commentary of this person in the media, and to not remind editors that the article should reflect this diversity of views as appropriate given that it's relevant to core Wikipedia policies, and especially BLP. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that it may have been me who tried to summarise the controversy by using the words "in some quarters", although being quite a while ago, I'm not sure. Just putting my two cents worth in - I think that the current version is suitable for this point in time. However substantial any of us think the controversy is, it is not appropriate either to attempt to summarise it (risking personal bias), especially given that a lot of it is expressed on social media and in the tabloid press. I'd be happy to reference the ABC article mentioned by Iryna because it's a quick summary and also links to the Guardian article written by her. If people really want to find out more about the hoo-ha, it's easy enough to use Google (or just look at her Facebook page, to witness the level of abuse, if it's still there). And this is the kind of thing which is perhaps best viewed in hindsight, 5 years hence, to keep things in proportion.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:RECENTISM should be avoided when writing a BLP, and it is the subject's notability which needs to be kept in check. She hasn't even been around long enough in any particular capacity to grab at snippets of what is now referred to as '5 minutes of fame' (or is it 5 seconds?). She's certainly not an Alan Jones who's made a long term career out of being a shock jock. If her current 'notoriety' was as well represented in reliable sources as incidents in his career (i.e., could this even begin to justify a spin-off article?), there might be an argument for inclusion... but a localised brouhaha is just that. Let's see how this stands up to the test of time before committing to journalistic reportage in the content itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all. Having given this a bit of thought since reading the article recently, I think that the section on the "Council for Australian-Arab Relations" should be moved outside the "Controversies" heading. It's not clear from the text why it classifies as a controversy, and in any case I think characterising it as a controversy for any reason might overshadow the biographical relevance of the information. Maybe the CAAR info could be presented under a separate "Public work" section following on from "Early life"? I think this also raises an issue with the leading paragraph in the "Controversies" section, which is largely a duplicate of the CAAR text. Maybe that text can reference the CAAR paragraph in order to make a contextual/temporal link between the "Controversies" section and the information about early life, but surely it shouldn't be repetitive? Cheers. :) Alkehaar (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have since modified the article slightly to meet my earlier vision. Alkehaar (talk) 07:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the multiple edits here, but I also cannot agree that the "Human rights complaint" and "Denied entry into the USA" sections can be considered controversies based on their current content. The human rights complaint was dismissed and a spokesperson for the Race Discrimination Commissioner made no further comment on it. For this to be considered a controversy would surely require a reference showing public disagreement with the verdict of the commissioner. On the other hand, I think the news coverage of the complaint could itself be considered controversy about the complaint/result, but then judging that to be the case for the sake of this entry would surely be against WP:SYNTH guidelines. Similarly, I don't understand how Abdel-Magied not possessing the correct visa for entry to the USA could be considered a controversy. Perhaps there was controversy around the US Customs and Border Protection not letting her into the country, but that's not a matter for this article, nor is it currently supported in the text. (And nor can I find a reference that might support it). Given these reasons I will remove the "Human rights complaint" and "Denied entry into the USA" sections. I don't think they add anything important to this article, and certainly not anything related to controversies. Please let me know if you disagree! Alkehaar (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"most hated muslim in australia"

Abgdel-Magied referred to herself as the most hated muslim in Australia, which unsurprisingly got quite a lot of media coverage and has featured in almost all articles about her since she said it. Where is a suitable subsection of the article for dealing with this, and what is the best way of dealing with this claim if at all in the article. The ABC article here as well, which we all agree is preferable over tabloids has it too http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-11/yassmin-abdel-magied-says-she-feels-betrayed-by-australia/8699138. Alexandre8 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm reviving this thread because, as per the hoo-ha mentioned above, I had added this article (Yassmin Abdel-Magied on becoming 'Australia's most publicly hated Muslim') under a Further reading header, but someone has removed it because it is also listed as a citation (although there is actually no rule against this in WP). An alternative would be to write another sentence and cite it under the "media controversies" or "relocation to London" section. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to be an uninvolved admin regarding this article, but as an observation it tends to be weighted towards criticism of Ms Abdel-Magied and doesn't currently discuss her reaction to this, comments made in support of her or the commentary on the criticism by various commentators (e.g., those who argue it was excessive and/or motivated by unpleasant viewpoints). This leads to issues around WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick-D. Yes, I tend to agree. It also seems that there are already a lot of words devoted to those storm-in-a-teacup events, although mostly necessary to explain them properly I think. I am a bit reluctant to grow the section further, but I might come back to it another day and find other opposing voices to report. I have now re-ordered the article significantly because the Controversy section didn't seem to fit comfortably in the Career section, and added some of her words about her move to London as part of this. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(Later...) @Nick-D: I added material which I thought pertinent and which at least partially addresses the issue expressed by Alexandre8 above and your points. However another user (see below) has been persistently undoing or altering much of my work recently, so I'm done for now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Resume vs Encyclopedic article?

Does this read like a WP:Resume to anyone else?

Most of the "Community, organisational and governmental roles" and "Honours and awards" are not WP:Notable.

Aeonx (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The article has changed a lot since this comment and it looks as if these issues have been addressed. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Occupation - discussion please

Abdel-Magied qualified and worked as a mechanical engineer until 2016 (alongside her media activities). Her website promotes her as a "writer, broadcaster and award-winning social advocate" and on one of her events as a "recovering engineer". She is best known for her media presence and writings. Her talks and articles are about race, religion, feminism, defining identity, unconscious bias, etc. and she promotes social inclusivity. What is the best description of her current occupation for the infobox and lead section? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A profession is an occupation founded upon specialized educational training, @Laterthanyouthink:. Yassmin Abdel-Magied is a mechanical engineer by degree with First-Class Honours from the University of Queensland. You seem to have previously deleted that from the lede. University degrees do not lapse regardless of how someone chooses to describe him/herself on a webpage or blog on any given day of the week. You claim that "She is best known for her media presence and writings." Really? Sampajanna (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

With regard to some of the topics above and others, I respectfully request that you, @Sampajanna:, discuss some of the issues with which you are in disagreement rather than repeatedly removing content and citations added by me. Your latest removal of content from the "Move to London" section has removed material that is very pertinent to the issue. I am not interested in edit warring, only in the improvement of the article. Your current version definitely violates WP:SYNTH and arguably WP:NPOV. Many of your other changes appear to have been trivial and/or unnecessary and not in the spirit of WP:EDIT. I would like to hear from other editors too, please. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This is by no means an edit war @Laterthanyouthink: Please do not take it personally. I agree with with some but not all of your changes, and vice versa. You are entitled to do the same, and have done so. Yes, indeed. The article has been improved in recent days due to the efforts of a number of editors, not just by one individual.

Nevertheless, in recent years (especially leading up to Anzac Day on 25 April), there tends to be a flurry of online activity surrounding Yassmin Abdel-Magied, often extremely flattering or disparaging. It seems to be a seasonal phenomenom. Naturally enough, things should quiet down again in about three weeks from now when no more Anzac Day media attention is received. Having said that, it would appear that your own editorial interest in Yassmin Abdel-Magied commenced about a week or so ago, Laterthanyouthink.

In any event, heavy reliance on Yassmin's own personal opinions, particularly from her social media pages / blogs, do not come across as impartial. In fact, such could be viewed at worst as manufactured information for self-promotional purposes. Sampajanna (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My editing has nothing to do with Anzac Day - purely coincidental that she has recently published a book (and before that, years ago when I came across it when it was a complete mess). Unfortunately it is a fact that she is known best for "the controversies", and IMO the trolling, media frenzy and huge consequences for her both personally and professionally needed to be explained, for this reason. It led to her losing her job as an engineer and moving to London, and much as I'd like to see greater concision, I think that what I've now included was necessary to explain the hoo-ha. Please discuss here before excising swathes of content. I'm always happy to go with a consensus decision, and would like to hear from others. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Manus and Nauru detainees

The description in the article shows presumption and bias in favor of the detainees. Not all of the people being detained are targets of persecution in their home countries. RichardBond (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section?

Hi Ashmoo, thanks for your recent edits, but can you point me to the style guide's bit about Controversy sections? I couldn't find anything; there are lots of articles about controversies (as the whole article) and my first search turned up quite a few with Controversy sections... In this case it seems apt, as the hoo-ha about a couple of her statements are the major reason for her notability in Australia, and the way the headings are now structured don't really flow logically, to my eye. Consequences section describes consequences of the two preceding sections, and what follows Eponym doesn't all belong under that heading. I don't want to revert unnecessarily, but I think the current structure needs improvement. Can we discuss here and work out a better heading structure? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Later, thanks for taking the time to discuss. I agree my new structure isn't the best. I was just trying to do a first pass to include all these controversies in the main text. It still needs going through and giving a more clear structure. I also agree that many article have Controversy section, but I believe this is not a good way to build a cohesive article. I agree again that the controversies are the key to her notability, but in my mind this is a reason to put all the controversies into the main text. Regarding whole articles about controversies, in my experience these are generally created as "junk" articles to keep the editors who are only interested in putting negative and salacious info into an article, regardless of notability or the readability of the article as a whole, off the main article. I'll dig up that link when I have some time. Ashmoo (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that, Ashmoo. I don't have time to concentrate on this one now, but I'll try to come back to it. Happy for you to play with the structure. You could be right about those controversy articles! But in this case it's not a salacious controversy, it's one which will still be mulled over, reviewed and written about in the future, less about her as a person and more about wider issues in Australian society and media (as with Adam Goodes). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's the page Wikipedia:Criticism#Controversy_section. As it says, such sections are not necessarily "banned" but generally an indication of poor structure. Ashmoo (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)