Talk:Iman al-Obeidi/Archive 1

Created archive page for bot

British journalist deported?

I have heard that a British Journalist, who had attempted to help Iman al-Obeidi during the hotel incident, has subsequently been expelled from Tripoli for "Inaccurate reporting" Can anybody verify this? If it is verifyable, it should be added to the article. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be one Mr. Charles Clover of the Financial Times. [1] [2]. --Kizor 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation to Arabic needed

Can anyone knowledgeable in the Arabic language please consider creating an equivalent of this article in Arabic Wikipedia? It seems to be a must. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks to Arabic editors. Cinosaur (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture, and need a name re-direct from "al-Obaida"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_404h/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/03/27/Foreign/Images/2011-03-27T155558Z_01_SJS23_RTRIDSP_3_LIBYA.jpg seems like a notable picture to me in regards to her impact on the country and world interest. Also, her name is variously written as "Iman al-Obaida" - could use a redirect from that name imho. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The image is from Reuters [3], so no, I'm afraid we can't use it. As for redirects, yes of course, good idea, feel free to create them from as many spelling combinations as you can think of ("Eman" vs. "Iman"; "al " vs. "el " vs. "al-" vs. "el-"; "Obaidi" vs. "Obeidi" vs. "Obaidy"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done under fair use. Lets see if it holds up. Cinosaur (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It didn't, I'm afraid [4]. Sorry, but please check WP:CSD#F7, second paragraph (in connection with WP:NFCC#3). That's why I said, the fact that it's from Reuters means it's off-limits to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! However, I would disagree with you here as WP:CSD#F7 cited by you says that "[n]on-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary", but unless I am missing something, the image was indeed the subject of the sourced commentary. Or was it? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, but this is a very common type of misunderstanding of the rule. There was sourced commentary, but the commentary was about the event that the image depicted, not about the image itself as a work of photography. The image was only being used to illustrate a report about the event – which is exactly the purpose its owners want to sell it for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I am learning something every day. FWIW, I've written to Reuters' picture desk brazenly asking for this photo to be released under Attribution ShareAlike and am keeping my fingers crossed – this picture is a must for the article. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good for you, but I wouldn't be too optimistic. These companies tend to be protective of their copyrights. It's a bit like writing to your local supermarket and asking them to provide a free supply of your favourite snack to all their customers, instead of selling it for money. You wouldn't be terribly surprised if they said no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they did not respond at all, but it's worth a try, with your good wishes. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Google gives me no hits at all on https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22Iman+al-Obaida%22 - after all, there's ي at the end in Arabic-Persian script. In any case, i've done some redirects for a few alternative transliterations such as Iman Obaidi, Iman al-Obaidi, Iman al-Obeidi, but i'm not sure what the standard policy is for redirects of Arabic name transliteration variations - if the variations are covered by non-alphanumeric separated "words" in the first line of the article, then search engines should pick up any variation moderately easily. Probably only the most common ones should be redirects, otherwise with e.g. 3 binary possibilities (Eman/Iman, al-/nothing, bei/bai) we get 8 variations; Al vs al vs Al- vs al- vs nothing would also increase that to 20. So 1000 Arabic name articles could give 19,000 redirect articles... Wikipedia is not paper, but that would seem like a poor information management strategy. Anyway, someone can link to the guideline, assuming there is one... Probably this has already been discussed and a recommendation made... Boud (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The only guideline that I'm aware of is the old slogan that "redirects are cheap". Thinking of the way the automatic name completion in the search box works, at least "Eman al...", "Eman el...", "Iman al..." and "Iman el..." should be covered somehow; autocompetion would probably do the rest for most users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Current location

We need to be careful about the fuzzy borderline between WP:NOTNEWS and notable information about someone who is at the centre of a notable current event. "Current location" sounds to me too newsy, so i changed the section title to "Alleged hostage status". AFAIR there's a guideline recommending "alleged" only if something is claimed to be criminal - which is the case here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/takinghostages.html For someone with beyond-USA knowledge and looking for somewhere where lots of reading, literature searching and editing is needed, see Hostage#Illegal_hostage_taking and the Talk:Hostage#Globalize for suggestions on how to globalise the section of that page. At the moment it's not very useful to link here, because it's mostly about older historical aspects and United States present hostage law, with almost nothing about general national and international law. Boud (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook references

...seem to be bordering on original research, as there appear to be no reliable sources to support the Global response section. See here and here. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to add this ref to "The use of social media...", but the Page left off an author. I'm not sure how to fix it. Help please?- Red River Beach (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done, after several hits and misses. Cinosaur (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!..checked edit to see how you fixed it (& couple of other things). Appreciatively, Red River Beach (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

also, see WP:1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some blogs:

• http://bankofamericasuck.com/03/26/war-rape-in-libya
• http://thebeautifulidea.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/welcome-to-the-technocracy-will-the-internet-deliver-freedom-or-slavery/

Are either of these blog authors notable enough for a blog exception? In any case, mainstream media may report something soon. Boud (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed page, The New York Times is cited as a reference for how his post mortem images went viral. --cda (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. There is a translation of an interview of his cousin http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/translated-interview-with-eman-al-obeidys-cousin/ I guess information may be soon appear in mainstream media. --Youssef (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a translation of what seems to be a mainstream (Dubai) TV station - see the draft page here: User:Sarmadhassan/Al Aan Tv. This appears to be a straightforward transcript of an interview, so reliability is mainly about the selection of what parts of the interview to exclude e.g. "i'm tired, can we finish this interview now?" or "can you say that again? i didn't hear properly" - and it would be a bit POV to claim that a Dubai TV station is any less reliable than US/UK TV stations like CNN, BBC, etc. So i see no problem in using it - it's <ref name="libyafeb17_familyinterview" /> in the article now. (The label is a bit misleading - sorry - since Al Aan did the interview and Libyafev17 only translated, but it's only a label and not visible to readers.) Boud (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

1.Thank you for helping me with this. am clumsy & very slow at this & trying to do it right, had trouble trying to add refs last night (which I had to delete as they came thru wrong), & ran out of time. I appreciate your help. I've added reference to the Guardian.co.uk .Red River Beach (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eman is being sued for slander. Sources added here. Please add to article

Please add this to the article in some way. She is being victimized again, and is being held against her will. Her sister is also being detained, and the press are unable to speak or find them. Her family has been pressured to tell her to change her story. Here are some sources:

• http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/29/libya.rape.case/index.html
• http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/middleeast/30tripoli.html
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-libya-woman-idUSTRE72S47520110329
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/29/us-libya-woman-mother-idUSTRE72S0LK20110329
• http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Video-Libya-Rape-Claim-Woman-Facing-Charges-Herself-As-Mother-Claims-She-Was-Offered-Bribes/Article/201103415962069?linkedfrom=fb

Petitions have been sent about via electronic means. http://www.change.org/petitions/protect-eman-al-obaidi-from-gaddafi-regime#?opt_new=t&opt_fb=t Video of demonstration in Libyan streets in support of Eman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Otdruin3-w0&feature=related 74.83.23.189 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, but most of this information is already added to the article. Would you mind looking through the diffs and telling what's still missing? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Update

There are now reports the regime is actually investigating the rape case and has arrested some suspects [5]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. And one here (in Dutch). Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Been a long time since I edited a WP page and can't figure out the new way to do citations. Was going to add a sentence to the end of the first paragraph in the Gaddafi government response section. The government spokesperson who originally said that she was drunk and possibly mentally incapacitated later said that she was a prostitute, though he did not repeat the allegations later. See paras 4-5 from the AP here -- [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.57.197 (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done using other sources. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Obeidi set free? Plus more sources.

Sorry, I will be quite busy in the real world for a few hours, but would a willing editor consider looking through and including some useful information from these sources, especially about Obeidi being reportedly released and people around the world sympathizing with her:

• UTV
• The Guardian

also, this link contains some criticism of the Obeidi incident as a media setup, and may merit inclusion to balance the article:

• Kaosenlared.net (Spanish)

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I will summarize the kaosenlared.net article: the Obeidi story must not be true because the new york times has lied before and also the us lied about weapons of mass destruction in iraq. true, but it doesn't come up with any facts about the Obeidi case. that's what is interesting about this story - there doesn't seem to be any credible counter stories yet. But we'll see. --cda (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, she has not been set free. She is being held against her will, and being charged with a crime for name her attackers. The government says this is a criminal matter, not political. She is being victimised again and again. See my section above. 74.83.23.189 (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose this page to be merged based on my following experience: The article about Daniel Hernandez Jr. was merged to the 2011 Tucson shooting because the guy was notable as a one time event. In the same sense, I believe this woman is notable for a one time event and therefore this page should be merged to the 2011 Libyan uprising. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please wait to merge for a few days at least. This woman is still missing. The situation should resolve in the next few days and in the meantime when people come to this page for the latest update about her, if it is merged it will be very hard to find the info about her in the much larger page. MOST people in the world have jobs and it is difficult to find the time to read through pages of text to find one piece of information - Where is she? Very hard to find an update about her. There is plenty of time to merge this article later - like next week even. But not right now. And may I point out that Tank Man is a stand -alone article.--cda (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove a tag put by another editor. It is a move frowned upon on wikipedia. Allow other editors to give their input. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to be polite then don't threaten me with merging this article into obscurity and in effect silencing the story about a woman who had a bag put over her head by a brutal regime to silence her. There will be enough time for merging later when the dust settles. There is no hurry. And by this rush you seem to be in it feels to me rude and threatening. Although I will assume that was not your intention.--cda (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

So you are admitting that this article is not being written on pursue of knowledge but as part of an activist move?. I think what happened to that woman is terrible, but I disagree she is more relevant than the hundreds of people killed by Kadhaffi. Oh and for the record, how am I threatening? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed – we should leave the tag on until we reach a consensus. Cinosaur (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's simply too premature to judge whether hers is a one-time event, as she might well be made into become an emblem for the opposition, thus meriting a separate entry. Besides, 2011 Libyan uprising is already 37kB of readable prose and counting, bordering on the recommended maximum length, so merging a necessarily truncated version of Iman al-Obeidi to 2011 Libyan uprising will not do justice to either. IMO, the already included sentence on Obeidi under Blocking of communications and media there is all we can afford having on her under 2011 Libyan uprising, and the rest should be left here as a daughter article – until and unless, of course, Iman al-Obeidi indeed sinks into mainstream oblivion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate citing guidelines, I really do. But based on what you wrote I think that would fall under WP:CRYSTAL guideline. That was exactly the same reason why the article about Daniel Hernandez Jr. was merged. I proposed that the guy might become even more notable when Gabrielle Giffords came out thanking him for saving her life and other editors pointed that guideline. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Camilo, while sympathizing with your somewhat bitter experience with the two discussions on Hernandez's deletion, #1 on January 15-23, 2011 and #2 on March 4-12, 2011, let me point out that there were almost two months between them to substantiate the initial WP:CRYSTAL claim, so, by the same token, why not allow for the same trial period here? And no, mine is not a clairvoyance guess, but a simple statement of facts that Iman al-Obeidi's story and act have already triggered a series of notable and highly publicized events such as an official statement by the opposition, Benghazi protest marches, massive campaigns in her support on social networks, involving some high-profile individuals, and in general, her perception as a "symbol of defiance against Gaddafi among activists seeking to oust his regime". So, per WP:EFFECT and WP:NTEMP, the mere effects of Iman's incident have already established her notability, and that's why WP:BLP1E does not apply here. So whether she will be made into become an emblem for the opposition more than she is now, is not relevant anymore (and I apologize if my original remark on such a possibility has sidetracked you into the WP:CRYSTAL discussion.) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/libyan-woman-offers-glimpse-into-workings-of-gaddafi-government/2011/03/26/AFNppLkB_story.html When people are printing your face onto giant banners and using them in demonstrations and your name is known all over the world, you're notable. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am opposed to putting a bag over this woman's head a second time by obscuring her article in a much, much larger article where it will be lost. There is plenty of time to merge this later. Not now. Tank Man ! --cda (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per Cinosaur, Pär Larsson. Common sense says that a gang-raped lawyer (or at least, law student) who tells her story to a multinational bunch of journalists is not going have her wikipedia-notability reduced enough for a merge. Boud (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems very likely she will be notable in her own right. This should stay, at least until things become clearer. Fork me (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: For the time being, leave it as it is. Yes, she is know just for this mone incident, and In the fullnes of time, yes it may become less significant, but while the event is still on-going, I think the article can justifiably stay. Give it a month, and look again. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion: Looks like there is a clear consensus against the proposed merge. I will remove the merge template. Thanks everybody for participating, and particularly to Camilo for initiating this discussion. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. It would be a good idea to also change the name of the article to Eman as I have been reading that is the correct romanization of her name. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, Iman al-Obeidi seems to be the most preferred spelling on Google News with 733 hits to date, and Eman al-Obeidi scores only third with 110 after Eman al-Obaidi with 163. This hierarchy is slightly reversed in Web google search (183,000 vs. 126,000 vs.114,000 respectively), still favoring Iman al-Obeidi. Shouldn't we go with the most recognizable name making alternatives into redirects (as we've already done)? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see a link to where it says according to which Romanization system "e" is more correct. The Arabic spelling (alif with hamza below plus Yāʾ) would imply a long "ʾī" in Standard Arabic, wouldn't it? (Not that I know anything about Arabic though.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nayirah (testimony)

Is there any indication in the news media that this testimony maybe fake which can be included in this article? See Nayirah (testimony). To encourage the US to back Kuwait in the Gulf war, a woman called Nayirah stated that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die.

Two years later it was revealed that she was Nayirah was the daughter of the Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States and the entire testimony was a hoax. Igottheconch (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I did see the Nayirah episode mentioned in a couple of readers' comments on published stories, but never in the stories themselves. If you come to know of such a parallel being made in reliable sources, please let us know. Thanks, Cinosaur (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it mentioned by some blog and chatroom commentators, but not by any reliable source so far. I find the parallel rather far-fetched in any case: Nayirah made her allegations in the safety of the US; Al-Obeidi made hers right under the eyes of the regime and new she was putting herself in risk of immediate repression. A staged event in those circumstances would have been little short of a propagandistic suicide attack. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well and astutely stated, Fut.Perf. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox?

Do we really need one of those ugly "infoboxes" in this article? I know some people have gotten used to them so much they can't stand an article without one, but apart from the automatism of "we need one because all other articles have one", this article seems to me to be one of those cases where the box really doesn't add anything useful at all. Infoboxes must burn in hell. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that if we keep the article in the WP:BLP domain, than and infobox comes in handy, as it gives the most crucial information on the person at a glance and in general arguably makes Wikipedia articles look more pro. But if we decide to go for the above rename proposal, than it's not needed. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I absolutely hate that "make articles look more pro" argument. Shudder. First: they don't; second: the only reason people think they do is because they've seen them on so many other articles. It's a self-perpetuating habit with very little actual function. (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Pet peeve? Well, everyone's entitled to one. However, the claim that this is merely a mindless self-perpetuating imitation of one another is hard to verify. I, for one, liked infoboxes immediately upon my acquaintance with Wikipedia, for the reason stated above – being able to get all the vital information on the subject at a glance before deciding if the article or even its lead at all deserves a read. This, among other things, is what I understand by professionally user-friendly layout and design of information services. But, again, this is not something worth breaking keyboards over. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedic information should correspond to the information about the topics themselves, and the reality of information is that it is subtle, rich and varied and difficult to ... put in pre-defined rigid boxes. However, the boxes are not that rigid - some have a huge number of optional parameters. It's also possible to modify the infobox templates: it requires convincing either Wikipedians of the need and/or the technical ability to handle lots and lots of nested parentheses without getting confused. Also, information does have patterns in it: infoboxes do summarise information in a significant way. The infobox here is fine by me. Boud (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

How can you, the reader of this article, help her

please spread the word, email it to your friends those who can help in translate into the other languages please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.33.126 (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Include Coverage By Libyan Television?

I don't feel qualified to do this myself but there have been several very notable statements made on Libyan state television regarding Iman. In particular, the host Hala Misuraty(sp?) has interviewed/interrogated Iman and then made some incredibly inflammatory statements. Would someone with knowledge of Arabic (or at least how to spell Hala's name) be interested in adding a section on Libyan Media Response? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVFeB4QN1xU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacomamama (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There are already English captions Tacomama.

What a rambling 15 minutes. This woman's logic was really lacking. Libya needs a better PR firm to discredit this woman. Nothing about her background, nothing convincing at all. Libya would do well to take a page from the way the US retaliated against Julian Assange of wikileaks. Errectstapler (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Internet and social network campaigns

Is the detail given in this section really necessary - or even notable? Giving lists of facebook groups and Twitter hashtags hardly seems encyclopedic, and neither aqre quotes from indivisuals. I feelthis section could sensibly be reduced to just two or three lines at most. Which I will do in due course. Regards Lynbarn (talk) 11:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as the facts are referenced to WP:RS, there is not harm keeping them in. Given the scope of the facebook and tweeter campaigns, why aren't such details notable? The quotes are also properly supported by WP:RS and IMO should be left it, albeit in a shortened and paraphrased form. They add the feel of how seriously people take to the campaign. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

comment on lead

1.The 1st par ref doesn't match. 2.Some form of the concept in the deleted sentence "The use of social media has been important both in Libya and throughout the MENA, as other forms of communication have been blocked or usurped by state controlled media." should be reintroduced. Eman said, "...had the media not take care of my case, I would have never seen daylight again. You know very well that Gaddafi’s regime is not understanding in these situations" http://www.webcitation.org/5xfvhwWgB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red River Beach (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Missing

We have a contradiction in the article, which I don't know how to square. Several sources say the mother telephoned her daughter after the incident—after being asked by Libyan govt officials to persuade her daughter to recant—and al-Obeidi refused to withdraw her allegations. On the other hand, we have other sources, including CNN, [7] quoting the family as saying they have no idea where she is. I'm not sure how best to resolve that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about something like "Some reports say that ...[1][[2][3], however others say ...[4][5][6]" Wikipedia can't determine what is true, just what has (verifiably) been said. Does that help? Lynbarn (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to write it well, and hard to judge whether all the sources should be mentioned. I think the telephone call is attributed to an activist, so the sources are very confused. Otherwise we end up with "some newspapers say her family has reported her missing, while others say her mother has spoken to her by telephone." We can do that, but it's not good. A better approach might be to report the confusion, and offer that as an example. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that discrepancy, but at least 1 report stated Libyan govt officials asked the mother to persuade the daughter, & the officials then put Iman on the phone. In other words, a conversation arranged by the officials. Red River Beach (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you remember which source said that? It would be useful to add it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

The Nayirah (testimony) section above inspired an idea – since WP:BLP reservations with this article keep coming up, most recently at its DYK nomination, won't it be prudent to rename the article to, say, "Iman al-Obeidi incident" with redirects from "Iman al-Obeidi" and other alternative spellings? This will declassify the article as a BLP and thus deflect most of its WP:N and WP:BLP1E criticism while keeping the contents essentially the same. Comments? Cinosaur (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

that seems like standard BLP rules. I know there is some section somewhere that says to name it the incident, not just the person. Igottheconch (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify here that a renaming will of course not "declassify the article as a BLP", in the sense that the strict sourcing and neutrality rules for BLPs will still be in force. I have no strong opinion on the renaming on BLP1E grounds, personally. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a case where en.wikipedians' systematic demographic bias applies. There are about 1700 US lawyers accepted as notable, so if we were unbiased, then we'd expect about 1700*(6 million)/(300 million) = 34 plus/minus a Poisson error of about 6 Libyan lawyers. So 28 or 40 Libyan lawyers would not be unusual, and 22 or 46 would only start raising suspicions. But we only have 4 Libyan lawyers, where Obeidi as a trainee lawyer is counted as a lawyer. That's nearly a factor of ten bias against Libyan lawyers.

Another way of putting it: Obeidi is, according to the present state of en.wikipedia, one of the four most famous Libyan lawyers. The action for which she is best known is what could be described as being a media lawyer (cf Mark Stephens (solicitor)) in her own favour.

An independent problem is: what is more important in the "reactions/responses": the hotel appearance or Obeidi herself? While it's clearly her hotel appearance and testimony that made Obeidi famous, it's not credible to suggest that the global and domestic responses are motivated on the moral grounds that Obeidi deserves support because she made a dramatic appearance at the hotel. On those grounds, Nayirah would deserve support for having acted well. Surely the moral grounds are that people are appalled that Obeidi was gang-raped and that as a rape victim, she is re-arrested and remains in detention by the authorities. (Some politicians undoubtedly are motivated by cold political calculations: how can they use this to maximise their chances of retaining/increasing their public support? But those sort of motivations require them to be able to pretend that they're making statements for moral reasons.) The hotel appearance made the global and domestic support much more practical in Obeidi's case (as compared to the presumably hundreds or more similar cases that took place in Libya during the last few weeks), but it seems to me that the topic is as much about Obeidi herself as about her appearance at the hotel.

So for these two reasons, i'm not eager about a Requested move proposal. The former reason is probably the stronger: a factor of about ten bias against Libyan lawyers. There are several RS's about Obeidi having done legal studies, continuing as a postgraduate, and being a trainee lawyer, and chances are she's more famous than the other 3 Libyan lawyers.

On the other hand, keeping the article as being primarily about Obeidi would be good if it were followed by a bit of restructuring, IMHO. As the person (ir)-responsible (depending on your POV) for the present section/sub-section structure AFAIR, i should probably suggest an alternative and wait for discussion. i'll keep it as a subsection here, since if we do the restructure, then it will reduce the motivation to consider renaming to "incident". Boud (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to point us towards the danger of systemic bias, but I'm afraid your argument about the number of notable lawyers is a bit of a red herring. Work in law is not what made Al-Obeidi notable. Nobody had ever heard of her. Whatever she has done in her life previously, her notability rests exclusively in this one incident so far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Boud I think your argument would be much more convincing if you rewrote what you were trying to say, I had a hard time following you. I see some good ideas here, but it is difficult for me to understand. Errectstapler (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fut.Perf.: it's not just a danger, it's a reality in this particular case. We have about 9 times less (i wrote 10 as an approximation above) Libyan lawyers than we would expect if there were no en.wikipedians' demographic bias. Whether or not Obeidi was en.wikipedia-notable prior to the hotel event is not relevant: now she is notable, and she is a Libyan (trainee) lawyer. AFAIK this seems to be undisputed from the RS's. As for saying that "work in law is not what made Obeidi notable", that's not so obvious. Gang rape is presumably a violation of Libyan (Jamahiriya) law and probably could count as a war crime under international law. "Testifying" in front of international journalists is not a standard legal technique, but some lawyers use the media - e.g. Mark Stephens (solicitor). In the present situation in Tripoli, talking directly to the international media might be just as reasonable a choice of a first step in a legal strategy as going to the law courts. Chances are Obeidi is now the most notable Libyan lawyer, or will be in the coming year or so. Errectstapler: i don't know if this helps clarify. In any case, i'm just one Wikipedian contributing some thoughts here... Boud (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

proposed restructure as primarily biographical article

IMHO we need to consider a restructure. The hotel appearance and what followed still would (at the moment) constitute the bulk of the article, but there would be more focus on Obeidi herself, and what has happened since her hotel appearance, and the ways that those related to her gang-rape testimony and the belief that the gang-rape happened. Over the next few weeks and months, chances seem reasonable that there'll be more notable material, though of course, trying to predict that would be WP:CRYSTAL. Any thoughts? i'll sign here so that people can edit the suggestion directly. Boud (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• LEAD: would have to be redone afterwards, to match the new structure.
• ==Career
• ==Activism
  • TODO: participated in anti-Gaddafi demos in Az Zawiyah (in an existing ref)

Cinosaur's comment: Too little info available for a section. I would actually merge the two above with a ==Background title. "Career" for a title sounds too business-like.

• ==Alleged gang-rape
  • ===Rixos Hotel appearance
  • ===Forced disappearance
  • ===Government counterclaims
  • ===Counter allegations
    • According to Ibrahim, al-Obeidi is being sued for choosing to reveal ...

Cinosaur's comment: There is logic behind this, but IMHO it chops up the actual incident too much and looks for now a bit too artificial. Somehow, Boud, I think you've struck just the right balance with Structure v.1, which we currently have .

• ==Supportive reactions
  • ===Domestic
    • NTC + citizens probably OK as a single === subsection?

Cinosaur's comment: No, I would leave them separate, due to their different natures. Please have a look at what we've now got under Global response. I guess we should be heading the same way with Domestic.

• • ===Global

Cinosaur's comment: Currently Global response outweighs the would-be Supportive Domestic 4-5 times in terms of the prose. My uneducated guess is that it will stay this way even as more material is added. Will it be structurally and stylistically justifiable to squeeze both as subsections under ==Supportive reaction?

• ==Alleged hostage status==

Cinosaur's comment: This is nice. :-)

Sorry for being so nihilistic with my comments, but this is how I see things for now. But who am I anyway? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

First draft of suggested restructure - feel free to modify and explain and sign here. i'm not fully convinced that this is the right structure. Wiki, wiki, wiki. Boud (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No apology needed :). Boud (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

More info came along making a more humble restructure (which i feel has a reasonable chance of surviving further edits in the short term) possible. Boud (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

i have restored some of the deleted wikilinks to New York Times, Washington Post, etc. and put wikilinks to CNN and other media that need to be cited by name. The reason is that this is not the USA.wikipedia.org, it is the English-language Wikipedia about the world. We cannot and should not expect readers to know what these newspapers/TV stations are. They should be able to click and find out.

i think that some of the links were deleted in this edit: [8].

Wikipedia:OVERLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked is also relevant here. For a topic related to the 2011 Libyan civil war where the role of Western states in the 2011 military intervention in Libya is important, the role of Western newspapers is especially relevant (whether for good or bad or something more subtle does not diminish the relevance).

Boud (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Cinosaur (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There's really no need to keep linking to news organizations. Lots of blue makes an article harder to read, and I think it's safe to say that everyone reading this knows what CNN is.

What I'd really like to see here is a very well-written, well-presented article that could, in principle, be nominated for featured-article status. That means keeping the blue links and footnotes to the minimum necessary; keeping out repetition and unnecessary quotations, etc. It would mean we could nominate it for the front page if the issue continues to be influential, which so far it certainly seems to be. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"I think it's safe to say that everyone reading this knows what CNN is": Please read WP:BIAS again. If featured-article status means making an article more US-centric, then it's hard to believe that it's useful for improving the encyclopedic quality of the article. Boud (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do take your point, but I still think we can safely assume people know what CNN is. It's interesting that you linked to BIAS, because that's what I had in mind when arguing against the citation clutter and list-defined refs. I worry that these templates are a bar to editing for people (like myself) who are not technically inclined. When we go into edit mode and see that kind of presentation, it's a little off-putting. So I like to keep things as simple as possible when I'm referencing articles, in part for the sake of editors not so familiar with all the gadgets. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Eman is free ?

Hi. Have a look at https://twitter.com/#!/LibyaInMe/status/54604600350736384 Could someone investigate?. She seems to have appeard on state television. --Youssef (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Possible two interview of Eman on State Tv http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150141191681762&oid=195440270494492&comments (Arabic) and http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150141181841762&oid=195440270494492&comments --Youssef (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for letting us know, Youssef. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome. Credits to https://twitter.com/#!/LibyaInMe My Arabic is (very) basic. I assume mainstream media may cover the topic soon. --Youssef (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Q. Use of the word "free"?-In the English translation, it isn't quite clear Iman is exactly free, but was released to the AG, & isn't allowed to go to Tobruk or Benghazi.Red River Beach (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

See article by Aryn Baker at 3:07 this morning: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/ I saw Twitter chatter about 2 am from Rixos regarding this, but don't know how to capture a tweet to show it. Red River Beach (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

From who was the tweet. You can link to the tweeter or best to the tweet. I think you can have the link if you click on the time under the tweet. --Youssef (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look at tweets of @girishjuneja beginning April 2, you will see a short, relevant tweet series. I don't know how to capture the series. Here is 1 of them: https://twitter.com/GirishJuneja/status/54312325204811777 Red River Beach (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I made a mistake with name of the channel. It is Libyan new TV. A draft of a translation is available here http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/04/translated-new-libya-satellite-channel-in-qatar-confirms-eman-al-obeidy-is-released-from-custody-via-telephone-interview/ --Youssef (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It certainly looks genuine enough. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems I am again wrong with the channel name. It is rather Libya TV for which I created a stub. --Youssef (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Youssef. Even though Libya TV is its name, the media calls it Free Libya TV, or New Libya Satellite TV, or... I just spent confused time trying to verify which Libya TV was actually involved. The Media often refer to Gaddafi State TV, (now called Libya Jamahiriya Broadcasting Corporation (LJBC)on Wiki, redirect from Libya State TV) as Libya TV. I found WP:COMMONNAME useful. This problem needs to be addressed right away IMHO, please. :) Red River Beach (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Has there been confirmation yet from another news organization that she's free? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Iman out, but not really free. Journos in Tripoli: CNN: http://twitter.com/NicRobertsonCNN/status/54914836798259200 AP: http://twitter.com/hadeelalsh/status/54916413449699329 CNN & AP: http://twitter.com/NicRobertsonCNN/status/54918759432978432 Red River Beach (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

CNN is apparently going to broadcast an interview with her this evening on its AC360, 10 pm ET. See here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates

Just a note to say there's no need to add citation templates to well-formed references; the more templates are added, the more they slow down load time, and when we're dealing with a news event with lots of references (growing every day), it can make a big difference over time. There's also no need to add—for established publications—access dates, links to archives, or the dates the archives were accessed, though it helps to do this if it's a source we think is likely to disappear. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a contradiction in terms, since a reference without a citation template is not really well-formed: it cannot be easily analysed (parsed) by robots for making a huge range of different checks, it cannot be analysed for systematic studies of referencing, and the particular style of rendering the information is "hardwired" (not changeable by changing the template). As for archiving, many "established" publications have a habit of making updates to their articles, so that someone coming along and checking has no idea of whether the previous editor (e.g. him/herself) misread the source or whether the information disappeared from the article, leading to editing confusion if no archival copy is available. Some "established" publications go behind a paywall (or "free login" wall) after some time delay, so their info becomes de facto unsourced if no archive is available. And i don't see why we should discourage access dates for articles that have a chance of being updated by the publisher.

i can believe that the templates slow down loading, but this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper.

For anyone wishing to find the archive links that SlimVirgin II seems to have removed, this seems to be the main edit: [9].

SlimVirgin II: you seem to have also removed many of the links to the newspapers' webpages. This makes it more difficult for people unfamiliar with those newspapers to judge their reliability. This is not just an encyclopedia, it is an encyclopedia written using wiki software.

i guess i should cite a guideline: Wikipedia:Citation templates:

"The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus."

So i'd like to suggest that you wait to see if there is consensus on your suggestion of removing citation templates before making any such massive changes. Boud (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Completely agreed with Boud here. While many of SlimVirgin's edits are very helpful, this editor's removal of citation templates was arbitrary and unwarranted, and I also find their argumentum ad load(um...) unconvincing – there're many mammoth Wikipedia articles heavily relying on hundreds of news references using citation templates – like Avatar (2009 film) and Themes in Avatar, for example – and they load just fine even through a sluggish rural Indian GPRS connection (I am on an Indian train tour at the moment!). Will have to undo the citation templates deletion, while preserving most of SlimVirgin's fine copy-editing once I get back to a speedy hotspot. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course references are well-formed without citation templates. For example, someone changed this:

• Sayah, Reza. [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.rape.case/?hpt=C1 "Enraged mother stands by daughter, allegedly raped by Gadhafi's men"], CNN, March 30, 2011.

to this:

• {{cite news|last=Sayah|first=Reza|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.rape.case/?hpt=C1|title=Enraged mother stands by daughter, allegedly raped by Gadhafi's men|work=CNN|date=March 30, 2011|accessdate=March 31, 2011}}

This adds clutter in edit mode, doesn't add extra information, and when there are lots of them it slows down load time, often considerably. Cinosaur, the load time issue is not in dispute; see here for example.

In addition, the extra clutter makes copy editing very difficult, because it's harder to see what is text and what is citation, and that leads to poor writing. It's for all these reasons that citation templates are somewhat contentious. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Example

Here's an example of the citation clutter in edit mode (the former Career section), and it would be a great deal worse were not a few of the refs using shortened versions (ref name=X). The clutter comes from three things: (a) too many refs; (b) the use of citation templates; and (c) including unnecessary parameters in the templates. The following is just four, brief and uncontentious sentences; one of the sentences has seven references in it:

Al-Obeidi, born in 1982<ref name="libyafeb17_familyinterview" /> or 1984/1985,<ref name=WashPost2 /> is a postgraduate law student from [[Tobruk]]<ref name="ThReuters_Benghazi_27March">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=Tripoli woman was in anti-Gaddafi protest — cousin | date=March 27, 2011 | publisher=Thomson Reuters | url=http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72Q0L020110327?sp=true |accessdate=March 27, 2011 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5xVKG92T3 |archivedate=March 27, 2011}}</ref> who graduated from studying law at the [[Seventh of April University]] in [[Az Zawiyah]],<ref name="libyafeb17_familyinterview">{{cite web| last =| first =| authorlink =| coauthors =| title =Translated: Interview with Eman Al Obeidy's cousin| work =| publisher =[[Al Aan TV]]/Libyafeb17.com| date =March 27, 2011| url =http://www.libyafeb17.com/ |format =| doi =| accessdate =March 27, 2011 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5xVN17byf |archivedate=March 27, 2011 |deadurl=no }}</ref><ref name=Time /> and had been interning at a Tripoli law firm,<ref name=Time /> pursuing a post-graduate degree.<ref name=WashPostHostage /> She had been living in the capital for the past year with her sister, Amal, whose husband Salih Hamid al-Aguri had been driving the car the day al-Obeidi was arrested. At the time of the Rixos Hotel incident she was working in a tourism company in Tripoli.<ref name="ThReuters_Benghazi_27March" /> Her family says that Iman al-Obeidi's sister has also been arrested and is under pressure to get her sister to recant.<ref name="ABC News_28March">{{cite news | first= | last= | pages= | language =| title=Rape victim offered hush money by Libyan goons | date=March 28, 2011 | publisher=ABC News | url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/27/3174877.htm |accessdate=March 28, 2011 |archiveurl=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/27/3174877.htm |archivedate=March 28, 2011 |deadurl=no }}</ref>

It's almost impossible to write well with these extra words in the text, and I think this ends up being a bar to editing. So my proposal is that we don't use templates; or at least if we do that we fill in only the necessary parameters. And also that we consider using some form of citation bundling to keep refs at the ends of sentences or paragraphs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 12:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this is a problem, but it isn't only in this article. I think it is something that should perhaps be opened to a wider audience. Is there a simpler, tidier way to add inline references while minimising the interference to the flow of the editable text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynbarn (talk • contribs)

There are several ways of approaching it. The method I use is twofold:

First, I write out the citation manually, which actually involves the same, or even less, typing than using the templates, e.g.

Sayah, Reza. [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/30/libya.rape.case/?hpt=C1 "Enraged mother stands by daughter, allegedly raped by Gadhafi's men"], CNN, March 30, 2011.

Secondly, I bundle citations at the end of a sentence or paragraph, so there aren't so many footnotes. So for example, the current Background section reads (this is what the former Career section, above, now looks like, minus the templates):

Al-Obeidi—known to her family as Imam Atik Salih, according to Time magazine—is reported to be a postgraduate law student from Tobruk, who graduated in law from the Seventh of April University in Az Zawiyah. She had been living in Tripoli for the past year with her sister, Amal, and had either been interning at a law firm or working in a tourism office.

Then the sources are listed at the end of the paragraph between one set of ref tags, to look like this in edit mode:

<ref>That she is from Tobruk, and working in a tourism office, see [http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72Q0L020110327?sp=true "Tripoli woman was in anti-Gaddafi protest — cousin"], Reuters, March 27, 2011.

• For more details from her family, see [http://www.webcitation.org/5xVN17byf "Interview with Eman Al Obeidy's cousin"], Al Aan TV/Libyafeb17.com, March 27, 2011.
• For the name her family knows her by, her graduation, and that she was interning in Tripoli, see Sotloff, Steven. [http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2062007,00.html "The rape of Iman al-Obeidi: The Libyan regime's other crisis"], ''Time'' magazine, March 29, 2011.
• That she was working as a lawyer, and was pursuing postgraduate studies, see [http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/report-parents-of-attacked-libyan-woman-say-shes-being-held-at-gadhafis-house/2011/03/27/AFrikOkB_story.html "Parents of Libyan woman who claimed rape tell TV she's held hostage at Gadhafi's compound"], Associated Press, March 28, 2011.
• That she was living with her sister, and for information about the sister and brother-in-law, see [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/27/3174877.htm "Rape victim offered hush money by Libyan goons"], ABC News, March 28, 2011.</ref>

In read mode, it looks like this, with the material in the footnote at the end of the article:

Al-Obeidi—known to her family as Imam Atik Salih, according to Time magazine—is reported to be a postgraduate law student from Tobruk, who graduated in law from the Seventh of April University in Az Zawiyah. She had been living in Tripoli for the past year with her sister, Amal, and had either been interning at a law firm or working in a tourism office.

==Notes==

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, Boud, and Lynbarn, I apologize for being unable to participate in this discussion for the next day or so, as I will be en route to the West and may not have reliable internet access in transit airports. Just a couple of quick comments to address SlimVirgin's arguments against the use of templates, which are basically two-fold – slower load speed and more clutter in editing mode:

• Speed: I read the discussion on citation templates and their influence on the page-load speed and found it too inconclusive to serve as a reason to ban templates from such small-to-moderate-sized articles as Iman al-Obeidi. As I said earlier, even the gigantic and exclusively citation template-based Avatar (2009 film) with slightly short of 300 references to news sources is a breeze to load over a GPRS connection. So even if template use does slow down the loading process, it does not seem to be worried about or factored in until we reach a reference count significantly greater than 300, which in Iman al-Obeidi seems a very remote possibility.
• Clutter: I personally prefer templates exactly because, no matter how and in which order you throw bits and pieces of a source being referenced into them, they produce a uniformly and neatly formatted ref list on the output. This seem to be particularly convenient for new editors, who don't need to worry about hand-assembling the references in exactly the right style, order, and punctuation. Also, with the inevitable news link decay, some 3-4 months down the line we will have to start replacing many of the existing links with their archived versions, which again is much easier done through templates. I have to agree with SlimVirgin that editing texts with templates is somewhat more attention-intensive than without, but I think it pays off.
• As a side remark, I would rather have this discussion and, hopefully, a consensus before the actual deletion of the templates, which is now Siamese-twinned with (and taken hostage by) SlimVirgin's excellent copy-editing. But I for one would definitely like to see them back, unless consensus rules otherwise. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The strain on the servers is a well-known issue, Cinosaur, and well before 300 refs; I'll try to find other discussions for you to read. Regarding this page, the clutter problem wouldn't be so bad if we could agree (a) to use fewer references, or locate them at the end of paragraphs (seven references in one sentence is never necessary); and (b) fill in only the necessary parameters in the templates, and delete the rest -- no need to repeat URLs twice, for example, or add URLs to archives for established publications. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for splitting your text. I agree with both of your suggestions, unless (a) we are referencing either direct speech, indirect speech, or close paraphrasing, per WP:INTEXT, or a word or phrase which is particularly contentious, per WP:INCITE, and (b) a link has already decayed and needs to be replaced with an archive. Cinosaur (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

INTEXT isn't related to citations, but to in-text attribution, a separate issue. INCITE makes clear that it's almost always best to place citations at the end of sentences or paragraphs. As for archives, it's best to choose sources that are less likely to decay wherever possible; there's certainly no need to add web citations for the New York Times etc. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can there be in-text attribution without a citation in our case? On a second thought, for such a politically sensitive article as this, I guess we'd better be on the safe side by placing citations at the end of sentences as the very minimum, unless a paragraph is so content-homogeneous that one-two citations at the end cover it all. Cinosaur (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

In-text attribution (Smith said) also requires an inline citation (to where he said it). I think the point is that we really don't need so many references. The best thing would be to rely on articles offering an overview, where multiple points can be referenced with one citation. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The other issue with the templates is that they use a citation style that doesn't exist outside WP. That's a minor issue for people not concerned about MoS issues; I mention it only as an extra point against their use. As you can tell, they're something of a bête noire for me. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Everybody's entitled to a "pet peeve," in Future Perfect's parlance. Mine, for instance, is spending too much time arguing on talk pages. Just kidding :)

PS. SlimVirgin, did you get rid of the Human Rights Watch passage for a reason? It's an important voice and a notable organization. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's another one of mine too :)

I removed the Human Rights Watch quote because we already have Amnesty, and the former wasn't saying anything different. I was thinking less is more. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not saying anything different and speaking in one voice are entirely different issues. Here we have a global campaign going on, and mentioning the fact that two influential organizations – one in US and another in UK – are independently saying the same is not a redundancy; on the contrary, it increases the section's EV by way of convincingly illustrating the response's truly global nature. IMO, HRW quote should be kept in. (I'm yet to go through some other changes I had questions about.) Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's just that there's a tendency with articles like this (feelings running high, on-going news event) to pack in everything that anyone has said. So we end up with a quote farm: A said, "it's terrible," and B said, "no, it's worse than terrible," and so on. It's best to stick to a small number of the most significant commentators making different points. If you're really wedded to the Human Rights Watch quote, then of course I won't object if you restore it. I'm just hoping we can minimize the number of quotes like that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, would you mind doing me a favor and restoring it yourself, as I'm off to catch my flight? Many thanks. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Cinosaur (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Modern technology (the wonders of)

Regarding the problem of "clutter" in the text, apart from using a good external editor, it looks like mediawiki geeks are still coming up with good ideas and implementing them. See Wikipedia:LDR#WP:LDR. i have started this with the first reference on Obeidi's post-release interview with Libya TV. The full reference goes in the reflist under |refs= ... and only a "repeat" reference is needed in the main text.

Please also remember that citation templates are very tolerant of whitespace (blanks, single ends-of-lines). Whitespace can do miracles in making electronic text more readable, without affecting the compiled/rendered result (provided that the rules are followed). Boud (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

But we're writing here for human readers and editors, Boud. We're the ones who have difficulty editing around them. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The purpose of the new List-defined references feature recently provided by mediawiki geeks Wikipedia:LDR#WP:LDR makes it possible to reduce clutter. This preserves the advantages for robots while making things easier for humans. The full reference goes in the reflist (References section) under "|refs= ..." and only a "repeat" reference is needed in the main text. The "repeat" reference<ref name="AlJazeera_17April" /> is written in the style used in this sentence. This makes it possible to retain citation templates while solving what for some people is a clutter problem.
2. The tolerance of whitespace preserves the advantages for robots while making things easier for humans.

Hope this is clearer now. Boud (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Boud, I know what they are, but they can be confusing, and they make section editing impossible. The best thing is keep the citations tight, just adding enough information to identify the text. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that it's clear now. :) However, now you've raised some new points.

1. I don't understand your claim that list-defined references are confusing. They solve the clutter problem which you brought up and on which some people had some agreement.
2. For "typical" browsers, it is not true that they make section editing impossible. Open the references section in one panel (e.g. firefox/iceweasel: right-mouse-button, "open link in new tab", this could vary with different versions); and open the section you wish to edit in another panel. Preview both repeatedly until you are happy with them, then save both at almost the same time. Wait a few seconds, and reload one of the panels, and then you should see no error messages. (By "typical", i am excluding the geek practice of using a terminal browser like lynx or links.)

Your second sentence seems to be a repeat of your arguments against citation templates, with no new information. Counterarguments by me and others are already stated above. Boud (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC) (minor clarifications of my comment Boud (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC), Boud (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC))

By panel do you mean tab? That's why it's awkward. It's not possible to open a section, edit it, and be done. You have to fiddle around with two tabs or windows. Sometimes you have to do that anyway when editing, but with list-defined refs you always have to in order to see the citations. Not sure what you mean about my second sentence. See below for an example of unnecessary words in a citation, and that's not even the worst example I found. Alone, it doesn't matter, but taken as a whole it seriously adds to clutter. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by "panel" i mean "tab". Writing the reference details in one tab and the prose text with a "repeat" reference in the other tab separates the two tasks. This is rather tidying things up than confusing things. You only need to correctly copy the label from one tab to the other. My guess is that you are modifying your claims of "confusing" and "section editing impossible" to "fiddly" and "requires having two tabs or windows open simultaneously".

"Not sure what you mean about my second sentence." Your first sentence was "Hi ... impossible", appearing to make claims that LDR's are confusing and section editing is impossible. Your second sentence, following the first full stop, was "The best... text". Boud (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that most people don't want to have to fiddle like that when adding refs, because they're so easy to write out. "Smith, John. "Name of article," Name of newspaper, date." Done. We don't need bots to be able to read them, just human beings. :) Obviously we've coming at this from very different cultural perspectives. I am as ungeeky as you could imagine. (That's not an anti-geek comment, btw -- without them, we'd have no Internet, no Web, and no Wikipedia.). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of the problem. Someone added this citation:

• <ref>{{cite web| last =Tran |first =Mark | authorlink =| coauthors =| title =Protests in Benghazi over Libyan woman's rape and detention in Tripoli - World News - The Guardian | work =| publisher =Guardian News and Media Ltd/[[The Guardian]]| date =March 27, 2011| url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/benghazi-woman-rape-and-detention |format =| doi = |access date =March 27, 2011|deadurl=no }}</ref>

But all you need to write is:

• <ref>Tran, Mark. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/27/benghazi-woman-rape-and-detention "Protests in Benghazi over Libyan woman's rape and detention in Tripoli"], ''The Guardian'', March 27, 2011.</ref>

Multiply the extra characters by the numbers of refs in each paragraph, sometimes within each sentence, and you see the difference it makes. (Note: actually the article title wasn't correct, but I've copied it for comparison's sake.) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand how this relates to list-defined references, which is the topic of this subsection. Boud (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If we could stick to CITE, that should resolve things. Here is what to include when citing a newspaper. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No. The link you gave states "Citations for newspaper articles typically include:". It does not resolve the issue of citation templates, nor the issue of clutter. I have acknowledged that you (and some others) have some difficulties in editing because of clutter. This particular subsection deals with a method of solving the problem of clutter while retaining the advantages of citation templates.

You seemed to have some strong arguments against the proposed solution: it was apparently "confusing" and made section-editing impossible. Now you seem to have downgraded your counterargument to it being "fiddly" and requiring using two tabs simultaneously. Boud (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A new and related point: It seems to me that in order to check that references' info is being used correctly, the easiest way to do this is to have several tabs open simultaneously, including some with the references. Having an extra one open for references would not seem to add much more difficulty. Boud (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I just saw this, & I am the 1 who added the example citation above (Mark Tran...). FYI, I wasn't sure how to do it, & my 1st attempt using the template failed, so therefore I copied exactly the format of the citation immediately preceding it, believing this to be required! The one I copied seemed to be similar to others on the page. It was very tedious & time consuming, & I'd never have bothered, had I realized it was wrong. I even had to go searching around on the internet to get the exact correct name of the Publisher. No one wants to spend time & energy doing useless tasks, that only cause clutter. For some reason, I thought wiki wanted more citations, rather than less. Thank you, Red River Beach (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Statistics

dont forget. -- Simplicius (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What for??

Seriously? An article about a woman who allegedly got raped? So we create new articles about every victim in a war? (posted at 20:00, 26 March 2011 by User:85.5.67.108)

It's a notable current event. Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The significance here is not that she was allegedly raped, it is that she revealed her story and circumstances in a room full of journalists, and the way she was dealt with by the regime's minders. Lynbarn (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

and also how the journalists were dealt with! noclador (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, those are very good reasons to start a new article...but who am I to judge, pfff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.67.108 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me extend Lynbarn's explanation: Obeidi revealed her story and circumstances in a room full of journalists who have more or less effectively been prevented by government "minders" from freely interviewing Tripoli citizens in the capital city of a country at the centre of world attention. Obeidi's situation is foreign journalists' most direct evidence regarding the Qadafi government's human rights (or violations thereof) policy on the streets of Tripoli. Boud (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The concept of just why this is particularly newsworthy might need to be more clearly stated in the main article, or in the background, with refs. Rape as another aspect of alleged Gaddafi government war crimes. Along w/ other listed refs, such as the Daily Beast 3/27 article, here are more ref & links:

• http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-30/emad-al-obeidi-sued-for-being-raped-in-libya/
• http://www.ohchr.org/en/newsevents/pages/rapeweaponwar.aspx
• http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/391/44/PDF/N0839144.pdf?OpenElementregards, Red River Beach (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also see: Tank_Man --cda (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Please add this concept to Main or Background- Gaddafi invited journalists from around the world to Tripoli, so they could see nothing was happening, he professed. But the Journalists found themselves confined under Gaddafi government control inside a hotel, with only staged group-excursions off premises, and almost no opportunity to excercise Freedom of the Press. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AF_LIBYA_BIZARRE_HOTEL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Red River Beach (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You might want to quote Kelly Askin. When Rape is a Tool of War. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/06/askin.libya.rape.war/?hpt=C2 Red River Beach (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

All of this reeks of black PR. Any rape is bad enough, but gangrape of 15 men should be so traumatic that a victim might be unable to walk for some time, much less "bursting" somewhere and wrestle with those dragging her out. My friend who's a paramedic said so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.32.135.70 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Iman vs Eman

I had suggested above that her name should be Eman, not Iman, CNN has been calling her Eman, and most media outlets have followed suit. Unfortunately some editor said that it was wrong, that the romanization is Iman and not Eman according to some google news hits that I seriously believe should stop as a way to define what's right and what's wrong....anyhow, I think the name of this article should be Eman - Al Obaidi and not Iman as Iman will naturally be read in English as "ay-man". Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See lemma Iman (concept) for proper spelling / transliteration of her name. 91.65.178.55 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Correct... In fact the sound E (as in bed) doesn't occur in Arabic.--Rafy talk 11:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Iman's image listed for deletion

Your thoughts on the proposed deletion are welcome there. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Bad, out of process result. The image itself is historically important, sourced as such, necessary to understand the topic, clearly fair use, widely copied around the world, no suitable free alternative is available, etc., but what can you do? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

DRV would be the best option to take. Throw me a link if you decide to do it. Silverseren^C 06:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Iman married?

Iman was reportedly married to Faraj Ghaithi in a religious ceremony. Slim Virgin's just reverted the addition of this info, so maybe we should discuss its reliability. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cinosaur, your source is an article from March from a Libyan anti-government website, saying there was a marriage ceremony that she didn't attend. [10] It seems to have been intended by the family to underline their support for her. We would need a source confirming that she regarded herself as married. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a note at the bottom of the article saying: "An Islamic marriage ceremony can take place with representatives from both sides (from the bride and groom) to give their consent. It is understood that Eman has previously agreed to marry Faraj, and that there was an ‘understanding’ between the two families." I guess this is their rationale for calling the ceremony an actual marriage rather than a mere gesture of support. I agree that a confirmation from Iman would be preferable, but does its absence invalidate this WP:RS? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

We would need some indication from her that she regarded herself as married, and an established news source. She didn't mention it in any of her interviews. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that infoboxes are meant for ironclad facts, which this news does not appear to be until verified by Iman. I guess we should mention this interesting and important fact somewhere else in the body of the article then, if not in the infobox itself. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 06:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no harm mentioning that they held a ceremony, so long as we don't imply that it means she's married. Also, we would have to use mainstream news sources; as I recall the family explained in them what the point of the ceremony was (i.e. to express support). SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

New sources and info

Here's some new sources about her that have popped up.

• Libya: Rape Accuser Says She Was Beaten in Qatar - New York Times
• Qatar deports Libyan woman who said she was raped - Reuters
• US scores Qatar deportation of alleged Libyan rape victim - AFP
• Libyan woman whose rape claims shocked the world is sent BACK to Gaddafi - Daily Mail
• Libya: Qatar Deports Dissident Woman - New York Times]

I'll just leave these here for people who are more into the format and structure of this article to add. Silverseren^C 06:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible deportation

There is a news report about Iman facing deportation from the United States: After 3 arrests in Boulder, Libyan refugee Iman al-Obeidi could face deportation Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 05:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent status

I saw this in the news today, and looking at the current article it seems a bit dated. Not really eager to get involved, but I think some updating is needed. Crum375 (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Libyan government representatives said al-Obeidi was a prostitute, a thief and a drunk. They said she was mentally ill. In America she was described as a drunk, violent and mentally ill. She was charged with Drinking, Assaulting an Officer, then attacking Two People. I'm starting to think maybe the Libyan officials were telling the truth about her.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/libya-rape-victim-sentencing/

From the Article: "The prosecutor's office showed her leniency with her previous violations, dismissing the first case against her. The second case -- a second-degree assault on a police officer -- was reduced to a misdemeanor." "No one was injured, and the district attorney's office again showed her some measure of compassion and leniency given what she claimed to be her circumstances," Deputy District Attorney Jonathon Martin says. "All of those things we took at face value." "The court ordered al-Obeidi to seek counseling for mental health issues, to get help for alcohol abuse. But even before her legal woes began, she had rejected offers for counseling." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4101:5D00:48BD:CD6E:1359:7109 (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I've flagged article as outdated. A lot of this info is much older. It's a bit of a minefield (a lot of it is criticism of her) so I dare not actually do the editing myself. Hopefully an expert in living biographies could look. :/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsquall (talk • contribs) 08:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

The information about her legal troubles and conviction for assault in Colorado has been added to the article (though without the POV commentary). General Ization ^Talk 22:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Iman al-Obeidi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Iman al-Obeidi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.avaaz.org/en/free_iman_al_obeidi/?twi

  Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. General Ization ^Talk 00:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Iman al-Obeidi. 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/20110405173240/http://edition.cnn.com:80/video/ to http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2011/04/05/ac.woman.talks.pt2.cnn?iref=allsearch
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121024055448/http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.rape.case/index.html?iref=allsearch to http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.rape.case/index.html?iref=allsearch
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110408154851/http://www.nytimes.com:80/2011/04/05/world/africa/05tripoli.html to http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/world/africa/05tripoli.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120303002250/http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/video-please-do-not-forget-me-says-al-obeidy/?iref=allsearch to http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/video-please-do-not-forget-me-says-al-obeidy/?iref=allsearch
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150626133519/http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0 to http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110415102318/http://edition.cnn.com:80/2011/WORLD/africa/03/26/libya.beaten.woman/ to http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/26/libya.beaten.woman

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) 17:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iman al-Obeidi. 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/20150626133519/http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0 to http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110327173024/http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Sees-A-Woman-Bundled-Away-By-Minders-From-Tripoli-Hotel-After-Allegedly-Being-Raped/Article/201103415960663?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15960663_Sky_News_Sees_A_Woman_Bundled_Away_By_Minders_From_Tripoli_Hotel_After_Allegedly_Being_Raped to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Sky-News-Sees-A-Woman-Bundled-Away-By-Minders-From-Tripoli-Hotel-After-Allegedly-Being-Raped/Article/201103415960663?lpos=World_News_First_World_News_Article_Teaser_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15960663_Sky_News_Sees_A_Woman_Bundled_Away_By_Minders_From_Tripoli_Hotel_After_Allegedly_Being_Raped
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626133519/http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0 to http://www.arabianbusiness.com/photos/activists-rally-in-washington-in-support-of-libya-s-eman-al-obeidi-391095.html?img=0

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) 21:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Iman al-Obeidi. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/video/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/04/libya.rape.case/index.html?iref=allsearch
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/world/africa/05tripoli.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/11/video-please-do-not-forget-me-says-al-obeidy/?iref=allsearch
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hduedcrUBz4h0cWjB_ixFB4EDJoA?docId=dd3121da9c4640509745c4c689a29c30
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511110434/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-0
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/libya-rape-interview/index.html

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) 15:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iman al-Obeidi. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hduedcrUBz4h0cWjB_ixFB4EDJoA?docId=dd3121da9c4640509745c4c689a29c30
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/us/libya-rape-interview/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110402101756/http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/01/thousands-joining-cause-to-free-libyas-eman-al-obeidy/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/01/thousands-joining-cause-to-free-libyas-eman-al-obeidy

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) 17:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)