Talk:Julie Bindel/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Categories

I removed Category:Familicide. All the other entries are people who killed their families, which I don't remember Bindel having done. Fences and windows (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Mish (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

archived

As new content has replaced the old thus mooting the previous discussions I've moved them to the archives. good work everyone - especially Mish! -- Banjeboi 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

thank you

As it has been nearly a month and the article appears to have settled, I'd like to thank everybody involved in contributing to this article. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

One small gripe on another reading through - I'm not sure that the description of Erin Pizzey under "domestic and violence and murder" represents where she sits all that well. On following the source out of curiosity as to what her objections were, I was a little bit surprised to find an extended rant about feminists and left-wingers. Rebecca (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is source:- Pizzey - founder of women's refuge movement, and opponent of radical feminist involvement in women's refuges. Daily Mail - right wing national newspaper known for its diatribes against the left, feminism, LGBT. So, Pizzey was vocal about Harman's proposed legislation and Bindel's supposed influence - Bindel being a political lesbian and radical feminist (by self definition), and Harman being a radical feminist (supposedly). Other's also discussed this, such as the Telegraph (politically right of centre) [1]; there is a report in the Sun [2] which is surprisingly balanced for that tabloid (not normally an ideal source), and the BBC has a link to the 'Women's Hour' program where this was discussed. The Gurdian also ran a piece [3], not by Bindel herself. The Pizzey piece in the Mail is explicit about Bindel's involvement, the other's aren't (although Bindel has been banging on about this for years). Mish (just an editor) (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dating conflict created by recent edit

A recent edit by MishMich (talk · contribs) resulted in the following, in relevant part: "In autumn 2008 Bindel was nominated for the [...] "Journalist of the year" award. [....] There was a picket of the awards ceremony on April 6 2008 [....]" If the awards ceremony was in April of 2008, clearly the nomination must have come before that, but "autumn 2008" is after April 2008 in the northern hemisphere where these events took place. The text changed had the ceremony date as November 2008, but as I have no idea which data are correct, I figured I should just point out the conflict to those of you who know the topic better. --Geoff Capp (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it should have been November. Mish (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issues still

I think the article still has NPOV issues and I'm going to tag it as such. The problem is the overall tone, which is generally laudatory to Bindel. Probably some more neutral phrasing of statements would help here. (Example: "Bindel helped educate on the issues of cyberstalking". Phrasing like that is a not-so-subtle endorsement of her views.) Also, a question of balance – it seems like views critical of her are barely given space, then followed by a lengthy "rebuttal" from Bindel's POV. That content should be in here, but the weighting of it is unbalanced, making the article lean toward a defense of Bindel's views.

Also, her involvement along with Sheila Jeffreys in the Leeds Revolutionary Feminist group is not mentioned at all. This was an extremely radical separatist group which set the stage for many of her present controversial views. The description here seems to treat her early activism as basically mainstream anti-violence/anti-rape activism. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(As an aside, Leeds Revolutionary Feminists and related groups were groups of some not-small historical importance, and there was even a BBC program on them. An article on British Revolutionary Feminism should definitely be added at some point.) Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, note this sentence concerning the article "Why I Hate Men": "Men, violence, and the way men relate to women has featured in articles where she has written about men, and discussed what is revealed in their comments about her writing." This is total sugar-coating of a very controversial thesis here. Now in the section covering Bindel's views of transgendered people, there is clear awareness that her views are controversial. So why are her views on men treated with kid gloves? Iamcuriousblue (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine, I have reworded those two, and removed the tag that was applied to one. I could not find up any material in WP:RS on her time in Leeds, not relating to her and Jeffreys. If you have some material that is relevant, noteworthy and from a reliable source, feel free to bring it here, explain what you see as worth inserting, and let's have a look at it. Then we can remove the tag you placed, as all the other points have been covered now. Mish (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll work on it over the next few days.

As for reliable sources for Bindel's Leeds Revoutionary Feminist connections, she discusses it in one her columns [4], The BBC program "Lefties: Angry Wimmin" covers this group and her membership in it, and a Google Books and Google Scholar search for "Julie Bindel" and "Leeds Revolutionary Feminist" turns up several academic sources. (A few of these I'll have to take a trip to the library for.) I think the "noteworthiness" of her activities with this group in a biography of Bindel is self-evident. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll want a copy of All the rage: reasserting radical lesbian feminism.[5] Fences&Windows 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep – that's one of the sources I had in mind. I'll probably have to go over to UC Berkeley to look at it in full. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What is happening about this? I attended to what was asked, and have waited over six months for the other material. Removing tag, as it serves no purpose. Mish (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed revision of biography for Julie Bindel

Below is the revision of the entry for Bindel, complete, incorporating the existing entry and expanded. Benji and Rebecca have both looked and made comments/changes (or had them made by me). Bearing in mind nothing will ever please everyone, I would like to propose we replace the existing entry. I have asked Julie Bindel to look at it, and she suggested one or two minor factual changes, and pointed out that there is pending legal action relating to the Big Brothel report, so I have removed the two allegations that are covered by this. Her only comment of the trans issue was that it is too long. I agree, but felt that this was the only way to gain a 'fair' representation of events. I am happy to work on reducing that section, as long as cutting it does not inadvertantly introduce any bias one way or the other. Provided nobody has any objections, I would like to replace the whole thing, although I am also happy to replace all the other sections, leaving the trans section as it is for now, work on the trans section here, and then replace the existing section with one arrived at through consensus. Mish (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote in the lead is still there, and it's still unacceptable. It's a laudatory quote on a controversial figure being used as summary. Beyond that, I don't have any outstanding problems with the draft.

However, for transparency's sake, I would like to know what changes were made at Bindel's request. Rebecca (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

She didn't go to Leeds University when she was younger, she was involved in activism, and went to Leeds Metropolitan later in life, which going by her papers from there puts that in the 90's. And she didn't get involved in activism because of Sutcliffe, but because of her involvement with activists involved in the campaign that developed in response to Sutcliffe. I had a look at the source, and you can read it either way. Apart from the allegations that 'Big Brothel' was funded by central government and that it was academically flawed, that's it. If somebody else wants them back in, that's fine, as long as I don't put them back in, and as long as the appropriate part of the refutation by POPPY is also put back in as well. That was it, nothing major. Mish (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is the full quote, and it is not what was there before "The Yorkshire Ripper case was my reason for becoming a campaigner against sexual violence", which is nothing like "Bindel cites Peter Sutcliffe [...] as her reason for becoming a campaigner against sexual violence." What she says is situated within a discussion about feminist activism around the case, and how Bindel became involved in the activism, and from there an activist for women's rights.

I'm not really that fussed about the Guardian quote, although it does come from the Mayes piece quoted elsewhere - perhaps it should be moved to coincide with his comments about the GBB article instead? I think that the editor's estimation of one of his paper's journalists is appropriate for the lead, especially as it is a quote expressing his opinion, rather than an opinion any of us are making. She is extraordinary, if not for managing to upset people in the way she has, so that five years on we are still discussing this. Mish (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It becomes an opinion that we are making when, of all the quotes about a controversial figure that we could use, we use a laudatory one by her employer. That's not a neutral decision; that's a pointed choice to choose a particularly favourable quote and use it as summary. As a laudatory opinion, if that goes in, we need to use a negative quote as well to maintain NPOV. This is opposed to a quote like Bindel's own "Marmite writer" one, which is actually neutral, fairly indisputable, and actually does refer to her "managing to upset people". Rebecca (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it into the body of text, in the context of Mayes' other comments from the same item. Mish (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, don't tell the folks over at Martin Luther King Jr. about this - he is described as a Saint of two churches. I tried to point out that neither the Anglican or Lutheran churches have made anybody a saint since the reformation, as they have no canonization proceedure, but they won't have it, even though it says so quite clearly on our own page about Anglican Saints. Maybe I'll turn around an RfC on the matter. Mish (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Rebecca and Benji, can I take it that there are no further substantive objections in principle to using this draft to replace the existing page? We may want to discuss reducing some of the material in the trans section (or not), but I'm not sure that is an issue if we agree that what is there at the moment can go forward. If so, should we request that protection be lifted, or ask the admin to review and insert the new draft? Mish (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, no problems here. I'd just ask for the protection to be lifted. Rebecca (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the draft to the article page, replacing the earlier version. I have relocated the draft to save space Talk:Julie Bindel/JB new The old version is here Talk:Julie Bindel/JB old for reference. Mish (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the trans section is well written and useful, and therefore request that it not be reduced. Rubywine (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Academic career

The article needs to make clear what Bindel studied as an undergraduate at Leeds Metropolitan University, and whether or not she actually graduated. I have removed several mentions of 'academia' in the article, because I have tried and failed to find any confirmation that Bindel ever graduated, I have read several positive assertions that she is not an academic, and because the quality of her research has been strongly criticised by academics. Rubywine (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The details of her time in academia, indeed much of her career before the late 1990s, is unclear. But that is not be unexpected in a figure who only became widely notable after 2000. The sources may not be clear about her qualifucations, but they are clear that she was a researcher at two universities, and at one point an assistant director at one. So, I have replaced 'researcher' where academic was used. Her focus did shift to academia, in continuance of her feminist activism into research - but I have not restored that bit, as it isn't really necessary to state this as it is obvious in the text. The sources for this are: Leeds [6][7][8], London [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Mish (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bindel's research was conducted at institutions which had recently acquired university status. She was an assistant research director at Leeds Metropolitan in the mid-90s; Leeds Metropolitan only acquired university status in 1992. As recently as 2008, both universities had extremely low research rankings (London Metropolitan 107th out of 132; Leeds Metropolitan 81st out of 113). I therefore see no reason to assume anything about Bindel's academic qualifications. Rubywine (talk) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is assumed about her qualifications. - MishMich - Talk - 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I was replying to your comments that Bindel's focus shifted to academia, and that you had not bothered to restore that bit because it is obvious. I disagree that it is obvious, because in British universities, the term 'academia' is only used to refer to post-graduate teaching and research.

The following information is purely for the record. I am not proposing to amend this article further as yet. But having examined the bibliography and chased up the academic references, I find no evidence to suggest that at Leeds Metropolitan, Julie Bindel was in reality anything more than a part time research assistant to Professor Liz Kelly. Bindel produced one information pack and two press packs, and contributed some data collection and a short report towards one of the only two real academic publications on which her name appears. There is no suggestion anywhere that Bindel may have been engaged in personal postgraduate research.

I have just had to correct the reference to the first of the two publications. Professor Kelly was very clearly the primary author and team leader (http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors193.pdf) but her name had been completely omitted! Bindel's contribution to the second and shorter publication is unstated, but Kelly was the sole co-author. Rubywine (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm stepping this up. I can find no supporting evidence for the claim that Bindel was the assistant director of the research unit on violence and abuse at Leeds Metropolitan, or that she directed or led any research at that university. All the results on Google are identical to the Wikipedia content, so Wikipedia appears to be the primary source. The only evidence available gives the strong impression that in fact, Bindel was a part time research assistant to Liz Kelly, the director of the research unit. An entirely different role. So I have decided to add a 'citation needed' tag to the article. Rubywine (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Move for Deletion

This person is of no note. Also , the categories are in error. Neither Arts and Entertainment nor Feminism are appropriate. She is a radical feminist, not a feminist. :Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism She is TERF Trans-exclusionary radical feminist . There needs to be a section collecting her transphobic remarks of which there are masses . The article has been white washed. If the editors can not manage neutrality then they should be blocked from editing and less bias editors take over. I suggest complete deletion and a rewrite from the beginning. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 03:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep She is a significant writer and activist, and the controversial aspects of Bindel's career are not glossed over as the article has a section on Bindel's writing about transsexuals. Her critics are not unrepresented in the section either. Writers are included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment. Philip Cross (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Julie Bindel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210094553/http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com:80/calendar/6161225152.ikml to http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com/calendar/6161225152.ikml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Factual errors about 'Big Brothel'.

From the Wikipedia page:

"The report found that unprotected anal sex was available from £10, and penetrative sex from £15, in over 900 brothels operating as legitimate business across every borough in London; many of the premises involved offered "very young girls", but denied any were under age, and many of the women were from Eastern Europe and South East Asia."

1. anal sex was available from £10 extra, up to £200 extra, according to the report, not 'from £10'. (page 6)

2. Penetrative sex was not available from £15 in over 900 brothels. From the report "Prices for full sex ranged from £15 to £250, with an average price of £61.923."(page 6). It should be clear in wikipedia that sex for £15 was not available in 900 brothels, but only in some of the 900 brothels investigated. It could only have been 1 single brothel offering sex for £15. The report does not specify.

3. the report does not say many premises offered 'very young girls'. This is a clear exageration. It only says 'a number' of premises offer 'very young girls'.(page 5)

The entire Big Brothel report is available online here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33738529/Big-Brothel-Poppy-Project, but is not referenced in wikipedia. 78.150.225.176 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2012‎ (UTC)

The above items have been included already. I have also added the fact that unprotected sex was "penetrative" (vaginal and anal), rather than just anal - the source does not make it clear how many offered one, the other or both, nor if there were price differentials. More importantly unprotected sex was only available at 2% of the establishments, (about 18) meaning there is little statistical value to the prices. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC).

Addition to lead

TJD2, please stop engaging in wholesale reverts. Disagreeing with one thing doesn't make it okay to revert other fixes.

The following is not appropriate for the lead or any other part of the article. The source for the first point isn't good, it contradicts itself (she created controversy but the media isn't concerned about it), and it contains original research:

"Recently, she has created controversy with her idea of putting all men in concentration camps, and eradicating heterosexuality as a whole." Despite this, she has not come under fire in the media, exemplifying a double standard in the way men and women are treated online, such as with men like Tim Hunt and lawyer Alexander Carter-Silk

SarahSV ^(talk) 05:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the material is not appropriate for the lead. The purpose of the lead should be to describe basic facts about Bindel and the key points of her career, and I doubt her comments about eradicating heterosexuality is one of them. I'm not sure why something about this matter would not belong elsewhere in the article, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, forget the last part of that. Having looked at the sources, I think you're completely right and that that content should not be in the article at all. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be in the article to maintain an objective POV with both positive and negative points. We can't focus on only the positive aspects, but then again looking at your profile FKC, you seem like an avid feminist so this would be a bit of a conflict of interest in your case. Please do not remove sourced material just because it disagrees with your views on feminism. TJD2 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

That is a completely ridiculous comment. Nothing I've ever said on my user page or anywhere else would convince a neutral observer that I am an "avid feminist". I simply happen to agree with SlimVirgin that the sources are poor and that the importance of Blindel's comments has not been established. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Controversial statements / Criticism section

@DuranDurar: @Bbb23: This is about my reversion of DuranDurar's edit previously reverted by Bbb23; per WP:BRD, we should probably discuss rather than just revert each other. The content DuranDurar is trying to add is:

Bindel has been the subject of controversy for some of her past statements, and has been called a misandrist, radical feminist, and bigot by her critics. In 2015, during an interview with the group RadFem Collective, Bindel stated that she believed men should be put "in some sort of (internment) camp" where they would, among other things, be forbidden from fighting or viewing pornography. She added that "[w]omen who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back," and later commented that she hoped heterosexuality "did not survive." These statements received considerable backlash. (Beck, Chris. "U.K. Radical Lesbian Feminist Wants All Men in Concentration Camps". Splice Today. Retrieved 29 December 2016.) In 2016, after a back-and-forth exchange with some users on Twitter, Bindel published a tweet saying: "Dear misogynist trolls I'm going to make things easier for you - save u some time. All men are rapists and should be put in prison then shot." (Prestigiacomo, Amanda. "Feminist Journalist: 'All Men Are Rapists and Should Be Put in Prison Then Shot'". Daily Wire. Retrieved 29 December 2016.)

My reasoning for reversion is that these are highly controversial statements in a WP:BLP, so, per that linked policy, need to be treated with great care, and cited to highly reliable sources - which The Daily Wire and Splice Today just aren't. Per our article about them, they're opinion sites. We need to wait for more reliable sources to write about these statements before we can, to give them the proper importance and perspective. --GRuban (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• I thank you for wanting to handle this with civility, and I'm glad that makes two of us who don't want an edit war! I do retort, however, that many living persons from various ends of the political spectrum have commentary dedicated to controversy or criticism of them. This article in particular does not, instead offering nothing but glory and praise to the person in question. Regardless of personal belief, Wikipedia is a website dedicated to stating neutral, unbiased, factual statements free from personal skewing or opinion meddling with what is fact. The fact, therefore, is that her statements have been criticized, just as she has been, while the article paints her not in a neutral sense but almost an advertisement sense. Whomever edited this, I believe, was quite fond of her. As rewriting the whole article would be unnecessary, I feel that placing a criticism section, backed by sources and evidence, is the right step into making this article more neutral, rather than an author's praisepiece. To that end, I'd also like to say that the Daily Wire is used as a legitimate source on multiple other articles, including articles relating to criticism and commentary of living persons, so I'm not entirely sure why this article is exempt from that.

Going back through the edit history, it seems the most vocal opponents of editing the article to include critique are, as their profiles openly state, strong Marxists, Feminists, or Left-leaning philosophists. While I'm not here to argue one's beliefs or put in beliefs of my own, this to me seems to say that the article may have been the victim of biased editors, with their own political beliefs changing what they felt necessary to be shown here or not shown here in an article relating to a Left-leaning, self-proclaimed Marxist radical feminist. Again, politics have nothing to do with this, and they shouldn't, which is why I feel the edit is necessary. With glowing praise throughout the article, advertisement wording for her published works, and self-proclaimed Marxists involved in denying and reverting edits of any tone of criticism of the person in question, I can't help but admit that bias may be afoot. This bias is of course no way on your part, and I'm not accusing you of such. My concerns only lie with other people and what may be underlying problems with the article as a whole. I'm not convinced one way or the other, but if it looks like a duck... DuranDurar (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not available to paint political opponents with cherry-picked quotes that disparage a BLP subject. That approach is fine for your blog but "criticism" (see WP:CSECTION) at Wikipedia should be based on neutral secondary sources that attempt a balanced overview of a subject. Only trolls would propose that the quoted words were intended literally. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state she intended them literally. I simply added what she said. And let's be reasonable: joke or not, it's worthy of criticism.DuranDurar (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

See, people write, say, and tweet, stupid things all the time. Only some of those things are worthy of being put into the Wikipedia articles about those people (if for no other reason than that we're not going to include a complete copy of the subject's Twitter feed!). The way we usually decide which are worthwhile is by seeing which ones reliable sources write about. That doesn't mean just picking the favorable ones, or just the ones that are about a political viewpoint; it includes Clinton's line about deplorables (hey, that one has a one word direct redirect!), and the Romney 47 percent comments, and Obama's "bitter, cling to guns and religion", and countless others, that, I'm quite sure, were not thoroughly thought out at the time they were said (or written, or tweeted) by their author, and the author really regrets saying them, but just happened to get picked up and made a big deal of by those reliable sources. If those reliable sources (which is not quite the same as the mainstream media, but it's a fair first approximation) pick up on these comments of Bindel, we will absolutely put them, and the reaction to them, in our article. Until then, we have to look at how contentious and controversial they are versus how much attention they've gotten. And in these cases, they're quite contentious and controversial, and they have gotten little or no attention by those reliable sources. So, per WP:BLP, its section WP:BLPSOURCES especially, we need to leave them out. --GRuban (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This article should state something similar to "Bindel said (insert controversial statement), for which she has been heavily criticised by (insert random group of critics)"? I'm probably not the only Norwegian currently trying to find some relatively neutral information on this person and her controversies, after she was recently no-platformed by Socialist Left Party. And I of course expected to find it on Wikipedia. Tannkrem (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You might like to look at the Working Class Movement Library (Their Facebook would be most current) and their LGBT History Month event. Bindel has been invited to speak at this event, despite being previously outspoken on trans- issues and hardly supportive to bisexuality either. There has been "a backlash", to say the least. The WCML have yet to comment in response. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Bindel. 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/20101116200722/http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/PRESSPACKgeneric12-06.pdf to http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/PRESSPACKgeneric12-06.pdf

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) 06:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2017

Add Julie's official website in External Links - www.thejuliebindel.com 51.7.117.98 (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The link to an official website properly should go in the infobox (if an article has one), not in the External links section, so I've added it there instead. Feel free to reopen this request if that isn't acceptable, for some reason. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)