Talk:Matthew Johns

Fair use rationale for Image:RegReagan003.jpg

Image:RegReagan003.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerns

This article has been the target of serious BLP violations in light of the recent accusations. I've removed a lot of the material on the 2002 tour incident, but it's left the section rather lacking. I'm watching the article at the moment, but it would be helpful to have additional eyes on it. Matty (talk) 06:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should let the dust settle on this one. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Come on, call a spade a spade. Why are we sanitising the incident? Let's be honest and call it assault. There is nothing wrong with group sex, but this incident has nothing to do with group sex. It was not group sex. Conollyb (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources clearly establish that whether this is assault remains questionable. It is therefore wrong for us to claim it is assault. I should add that part of your edit is clearly nonsense since police investigated the incident after receiving a complaint 4 days later. They did not attend the incident at the time it occured. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is assault, that's a criminal act. Matthew Johns was not charged nor convicted. Nor can we say alleged assault on Wikipedia for defamation reasons. POV on Conolly's part. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You may argue that it is not legally assault (but it did say "...alleged" remember), but there is no question that it is in no way 'group sex'. Why is this not clear? Unless your idea of 'group sex' is a single, terrorised, intimidated girl on her back being used by one man after another while other men watch on and masturbate. Whatever it is, it is pretty unsavoury don't you think? Do you defend such behaviour? Tell it like it is.

If its not assault, then perhaps the Johns defenders would call it a 'gang bang'. Why not say that? And is it not true that he did not express any concern for the woman? Why delete that?Conollyb (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Johns did express concern. See "Any trauma and embarrassment that she's gone through as a result of this I'm extremely sorry for." at Matthew Johns apologises over sex incident. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source has state he did not express concern for the woman then it's WP:OR. The simple fact is, most reliable sources I've seen call it group sex. No reliable source that I've seen calls it a gang bang. Few if any call it assault or even alleged assault. My ideas of group sex are of course irrelevant as should yours. Similar my personal feelings of this incident are irrelevant as should yours be. If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings of this incident in editing then you should really step aside Nil Einne (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should report on the known facts, not the interpretations made by others. The only confirmed facts we have is that group sex took place, no charges (including assault charges) have or will be laid and Johns has apologised for his part in the activity. Also, it is fair to report on the impact the actions had on the girl involved. Speculation beyond this will be removed and repeat offenders blocked. Regardless of our personal views (and my own personal disgust in the whole sordid episode), we will follow WP:BLP. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The media uses the euphemistic term 'group sex' for their own reasons. But the actions described do not accord with that. It would not be the first time that the media has put a spin on something, would it? In any case, the description of events I gave did came from that very same media. By repeating their spin we are guilty of using spin ourselves; I thought Wikipedia was all about telling the truth.

I recommend you re-read the Four Corners "Code of Silence" transcript.Conollyb (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

And I recommend that you read this article which asserts that the so-called "victim" bragged about her experience to her work colleagues. WWGB (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You apparently really, really need to read up on our policies before you get so heavily involved in such a contentious issue. One of our cornerstone policies says wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Indeed that's perhaps one of the most repeated statements on wikipedia so I don't think there's much point discussing this further when you say "I thought Wikipedia was all about telling the truth" and ignoring media spin. (Incidentally, I as with Mattinbgn and I suspect probably most or all editors involved here share a personal disgust but as we've both stated, our personal feelings are irrelevant) Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. But it should also be considered that policies governing Biographies of Living Persons extend beyond just Verifiability. Something can be true, accurately sourced and still have no place in a BLP [Wikipedia:BLP]. Given that no charges were made and that there is still (I hope) a presumption of innocence until proven guilty any mention of this should be made very light, totally factual and to the point, if indeed it has any place in the biography at all. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Reinserted section removed by Jeff79. the said source includes numerous incidents of controversial rugby league incidents such as: (Four Corners reporter) SARAH FERGUSON: "It was the Canterbury Bulldogs scandal in 2004 that uncovered the depraved practise of group sex... Managing their emotions on the field is one thing, as history proves managing what happens off the field is much harder"

STEVE BURRASTON, CEO NEWCASTLE KNIGHTS: "I think they recognise that there may be an image that Rugby League has in its attitude towards women and I think some of that's quite founded over the years."

CAROLINE (victim of Newcastle Knights' Dane Tilse's sexual assault ): "There is no way. It's not like if he was just another guy. I would be going up against him. If I'm going up against Dane Tilse, I'm going up against him, the football team, the NRL, their fans, I'm not going to take that on."

SARAH FERGUSON: "Charmyne told us she was raped by a well-known NRL player, she didn't even consider going to the police."

DAVID GALLOP, CEO NATIONAL RUGBY LEAGUE: "To the extent that um, young women are finding themselves in a degrading situation um, of course we're appalled about that and um, we do what we can to educate our players that that is wrong."

ROY MASTERS, SPORTS WRITER AND FORMER COACH: "...in the past there could be little doubt that um, a girl that might've accommodated three or four players was all part of players becoming a closer-knit unit, for want of a better word. I do think it in the past may well have been a focus of team players um, relating to each other."

SARAH FERGUSON: It was revealed that during the tour a number of Bulldogs players... players commented at the time that gang banging is nothing new and "some of the boys love a bun" their nick name for group sex... the NRL was left to explain how this tawdry and demeaning practise had become part of the game's culture... clubs and the NRL have to clean out the old culture of exploitation and disdain, for the game and for women like Caroline too."

I'm all up for including these quotes but i'm sure you'll agree it will make a rther long section which is why i initially included that one sentence as a link to the poorly named List of rugby league incidents. if you think it contravenes wikipedia guidelines i can only surmise you do not particularly care about former mentioned behaviour by nrl players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxwasright (talk • contribs) 05:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The line I removed was: "The incident follows a long history of controversial rugby league incidents". The source doesn't say there is a long history of controversial incidents. Long as opposed to what? The short history of incidents in any other sport or profession? You wrote that line yourself, with a convenient link to the un-linked-to (and indeed poorly named) list of rugby league incidents. Much better than the sad attempts to include it in 'See also' sections though, I'll give you that.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

i never said it was a direct quote. as i previously said, i'm trying to summarize the events into a short explanation. if it needs expanding upon then so be it but i don't think it should be glazed over. so you think approximately 5 years dating back to the bulldogs incident or 7 years dating back to the initial christchurch incident doesn't constitute a long period? fine, 5 years or 7 years is subjective. i'm not interested in splitting hairs over this but i think this sentence (however it is worded) should be included. i don't even understand what you mean by "un-linked-to". if you mean it is unrelated to the list of rugby league incidents i think you're mistaken. i fail to see how it is sad or convenient to link matthew johns to the said page. Marxwasright (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If the incident in 2002 follows (sic) a long list of incidents, what were those pre-2002 incidents? They seem mainly related to booze and drugs, not women. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no new points to make. You wrote the line yourself. It's unreferenced. It goes. Unfortunately for you wikipedia's not the place for awareness-raising campaigns or POV-pushing. And it is absurd to go about adding 'See also' sections to all people mentioned on the list of rugby league incidents page purely for the sake of creating links to it.--Jeff79 (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

you misunderstood. the incident i'm referring to is johns' 2009 outing in the christchurch affair and his standing down from his professional positions. it's correct list of rugby league incidents isn't all about treatment of women, i initially hadn't read every single listed incident. i know i wrote that line but to follow your logic, every single word typed in wikipedia would have to be a direct quote from someone else. i'm not pushing POV. there's nothing sensational about my contribution. as for awareness-raising you're just getting defensive. wikipedia isn't a fansite either. i can see you have put a lot of work into rugby-related pages but this does not detract from that. it's relevant. it's been front page news. also, plenty of wikipedia pages have 'see also' pages to pages that are related- this is related. Marxwasright (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it does need to be said that the incident has been tied into a much wider issue concerning rugby league and women; this has been widely reported on in its wake and has had notable fallout (sponsors withdrawing, etc.). This said, there are abundant good sources (I read a good one about Cronulla's specific problems in one of the papers this morning); a throwaway link to a Wikipedia list isn't really good enough.

I also think the way the incident is being described here is problematic, and leans toward Johns; remember that the victim is also a living person and that BLP concerns apply to both parties. It's a bit misleading; if the article isn't going to mention the word rape, it needs to actually use the Four Corners story as a source and state what is being claimed actually happened. They may not have sought out to rape her, but it's pretty clear based on the testimony there that they didn't give much of a damn about ensuring that there was consent; something which if not a crime in NZ in 2002 certainly is in most jurisdictions now. In short, the article more or less tries to acquit Johns, when that doesn't match with how this incident has been publicly received. The sources don't support the slant the article takes here; the very best one can give Johns is that no one but him and his victim knows definitively what happened that night. Rebecca (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging from what i've seen in the papers, the woman doesn't exactly have her story straight. Are you trying to say that by not saying "she was raped" we are violating WP:BLP? Thats beyond the point though. This is not an article on the incident. This is an article on Matthew Johns. Therefore, the See Also category is inappropriate. Matty (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is why we must stick to the reported facts; what you judge to have seen, and what the facts actually state, is a different story. It is an article on Matthew Johns; as a significant incident in his career, it needs to be discussed in a neutral and verifiable manner. I have no idea what you're talking about with a "see also" category. Rebecca (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we should report facts. It's not yet a verifiable fact that "Clare" is indeed a victim since nobody has been convicted of a crime. Maybe she is a "victim" of trauma, I don't know. But it's certianly not clear that she is Matthew Johns' victim.

• "also think the way the incident is being described here is problematic, and leans toward Johns; remember that the victim is also a living person and that BLP concerns apply to both parties. It's a bit misleading; if the article isn't going to mention the word rape, it needs to actually use the Four Corners story as a source and state what is being claimed actually happened."

We don't know what happened, but we can use 4 corners as a source.

• "it's pretty clear based on the testimony there that they didn't give much of a damn about ensuring that there was consent; something which if not a crime in NZ in 2002 certainly is in most jurisdictions now."

What recent law changes are you referring too? I also dispute that anything is clear other than that group sex occured.

• "In short, the article more or less tries to acquit Johns"

This article doesn't try and acquit Johns, you have to charged with a crime to be acquited, and obviously there was not enough evidence for this to happen. Whether absence of evidence is evidence of absence is another question, but there is not enough evidence to prove Johns is guilty of sexual assualt.

• "the very best one can give Johns is that no one but him and his victim knows definitively what happened that night."

Rebecca, you seem to think you know what happened. By calling "Clare" Johns' victim you imply to know a crime did take place, if you can prove it then go to the police and get a conviction. But that has to happen before we can insert words like "sexual assualt" or "rape" in this article.

Archaic d00d (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need to tread carefully - he has not been convicted of a crime. At the same time, the article needs to be fair to the victim, and that isn't the case it the moment; it strongly leans toward Johns, when it should be neutral. There is a big difference between leaving it at "group sex", and pointing out that whether the person actually consented to said group sex is heavily disputed. Rebecca (talk) 18:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's heavily disputed, the only evidence that it was non-consenual group sex (what a stupid turn of phrase, i heard it in the media - it was either consensual or gang rape) is "Clare" and her truthfulness is cast into doubt. But not by you who persist in calling her the "victim", when this is not established yet. Neutrally this is a summary of events - an accusation by "Clare", denials by various people, statements that "Clare" bragged about the event etc, and police finding insufficient evidence for charges.Archaic d00d (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Trauma concerns

I've removed the comments about the alleged victim's trauma. The problem is that it is clear she was traumatized, as she has since received ongoing counselling, has attempted suicide, and reported the event to the police. Whether or not her "friends" believed that she wasn't traumatized at the time isn't the point, nor, for that matter, is whether or not she boasted about the event. Pointing out her immediate response trivialises the clear, well documented, trauma that is known to have occurred as a result of the event, and which has not been questioned. It doesn't provide context, but provides undue weight to a third party's claims - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's one person's word against another. Both persons' words are published. Is one person's word worth more than another's? Hardly balanced is it? This is wikipedia. We're supposed to provide balance. As long as we stick to the facts ("This person has said that") and it is referenced by a published, third-party source (which is is). There's no grounds for removal is there?--Jeff79 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilby what makes you so sure that her suicide attempts etc were the result of the incident? An employer described her as "stable" is the only evidence of that. Further, I don't know what you mean by "trivializes" the matter. A more neutral quote could be "The consensus among hotel staff is that the trouble she got into was of her own making." http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25490942-5019031,00.html In any case since her apparent truama, and getting compensation from the NZ gov, lends weight to her version of events it's only balanced that other evidence that calls them into question is presented. We don't know the truth, we can just present the facts as presented to us. Most of these facts are just quotes. Boasting is a point, so is receiving compensation thusly they both should be in the article.

I agree with Jeff79, it's one person's voice against more than one persons' voice (the players, the staff, the proprietor). Obviously it's not up to us to decide the facts, merely to present them. Archaic d00d (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look at WP:UNDUE? This isn't one person's word against another. This is a person claiming she was traumatized, raising the event with the police, receiving counselling and support for the trauma, and attempting suicide, all supported by documentary evidence. Being countered in the article by a ex-work colleague claiming that she bragged about the event. Maybe she did. But to give equal weight to the work colleague's comment is undue. The question for the article is not was she tramatised - that, at this point, is a given - but how did Johns' actions affect his life.

Seriously, the issue here was not did she give consent. It is simply was she tramatised. And everything says yes - even the colleague in the article referenced doesn't deny that, and only says that she didn't appear to be tramatised for the five days after the event. - Bilby (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It takes a pretty amazing level of clueless to suggest that someone's employer is going to know more about whether someone is traumatised over a sexual assault than the person themselves. Rebecca (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clueless to call someone the victim of sexual assualt when no charges were laid and significant evidence to the contrary exists. All we can say is that collegues said she was not traumatised, it's possible that "Clare" made this story up to get compensation from the NZ government. I won't say this in the article since it's not a referenced suspicion, but I deny that "everything says yes". Btw I have absolutely no problem with the facts that Clare said she was traumtised, made accusations of sexual assualt to the police, and recieved compensation. I just think we should be equally willing to include evidence to the contrary.Archaic d00d (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't say that. What we can say is that psychiatrists said she was traumatised, she said she was traumatised, she attempted suicide, the NZ government said she was traumatised and one work colleague said that she didn't appear traumatised the first few days after the event. You're putting the word of one work colleague over that of every other source. That's undue weight. - Bilby (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

However, a colleague of the woman involved has stated that she openly bragged about having sex with several players shortly after the incident, and stated that she did not appear to be traumatised for four or five days after the event.[12] This is undue weight and, in my opinion, leads into other comments made which haven't been mentioned here. From my perspective, the section before the addition of this sentence was balanced, to the point and factual. If anyone feels the need to expand on who said what it might be better to start an article on Code of Silence itself, including ramifications for the code, club, players and subjects. The topic is bigger than Matthew Johns.  florrie  23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not undue weight to report a widely published, and therefore notable, claim about the incident. I think some people believe that impartiality means summarasing 4 Corners program and including no other sources. We are just parrotting reports in this article, not attempting to find the truth. The report about "Clare" bragging is verifiable, and actually comes from more than one source (though this isn't relevent). We are not reporting that it's true, only that it was said. Similarly with "Clare"'s reports, we cannot say they are true only that they have been said. That's impartiality, and wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth.

florrie when you say "in my opinion, leads into other comments made which haven't been mentioned here." that's an appeal to consequences. It's a logical fallacy, just because you don't like the consequences doesn't mean a certian point isn't true or notable. If you remove a source for that reason you are trying to censor the article, and wikipedia is not censored.Archaic d00d (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Florrie is right. The article at present gives fairly significant weight to the opinion of a coworker, as against all the other sources - when how the hell would the coworker be in a position to know in the first place? Rebecca (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Archaic d00d, you seem to be conflating "it was published in a reliable source" with "we must include it". The two aren't the same, especially when faced with WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Including it currently gives a false impression on the situation. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca, what is florrie right about? "how thell would a cowokorker be in a position to know in the first place?". The standard is verifiability and not truth, it is verified that the coworker said it.

Bilby, "you seem to be conflating "it was published in a reliable source" with "we must include it". " Ofcourse not, I think what must be included is relevent information from relaible sources. This information is relevent. A single sentence, from a very widely reported article, is not WP:UNDUE. As for the WP:BLP this is also no problem because we have cited a reliable source and taken no position on the truthfulness of the statement in the article.Archaic d00d (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

On the WP:BLP front, "Avoid repeating gossip." This looks awfully like gossip. But more importantly, WP:UNDUE isn't about the actual amount of space, but the comparative space. We have one sentence saying that she was tramatised, covering material in (quite literally) hundreds of sources, based on very reliable information, being placed with on sentence covering the opinion of a co-worker, covered in only a few sources. The problem isn't that it is one sentence - the problem is that it is being given equal weight, when it shouldn't be treated thus. It is creating a false picture of the coverage and the situation. - Bilby (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, since we tried to post at the same time and I got an edit conflict, what Bilby said. Rebecca (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It can't be any shorter than one sentence. It's not getting equal weight as "Clare"'s allegations, if you look at only one paragraph then maybe, but "Clare"'s allegations span more than one paragraph. Also you are wrong about gossip. Talking about anybody's sex life sounds awfully like gossip. But this source is not from a less than reliable publication, and is not only from anonymous sources. It's not just gossip, it's a statement about somebodies recollections of an accuser. This point was not just written about a few times, but many, and referenced by many other articles. It's not undue weight, and it's not gossip. The section advises us to ask if the statement is true? it may very well be. But a broader standard of wikipedia says verifiability is the standard and not truth. As for your final point it does not create a false picture of the coverage, since this point was very widely reported. As for the "situation", sorry to repeat myself, the standard is verifiability and not truth, though why some people on here seem to think they know the "truth" is beyond me.Archaic d00d (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The consequences don't concern me, it's not my bio, nor is it "Clare's" for that matter, but if you include one verifiable statement which is not precisely supportive of Clare, then why aren't they all included? That would indeed be a very undue-weighty section and would, as I said above, be more suited to an article on the programme than one participant. Clare's statement to the Christchurch Press from 2002 is uninfluenced by seven years of trauma, and interesting reading. Although it is used as a reference, it is only to support the fact that no charges were laid, nothing else.  florrie  10:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I understand where you're coming from, and it is always difficult to measure proper weight. But at the moment we have two sentences discussing the alleged victim's trauma:

The woman involved has disclosed that she has experienced emotional trauma since the event and has been receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand Government.

and

However, a colleague of the woman involved has stated that she openly bragged about having sex with several players shortly after the incident, and stated that she did not appear to be traumatised for four or five days after the event

The rest is about related points, but the question "what effect did it have on the alleged victim" is only answered in the article with these two sentences. Thus on the one hand, we have psychiatric reports, her own description of what she suffered, the support and counseling that she received from the NZ government, and her unfortunate suicide attempts. The points are extensively covered in the media, including in the article that is being used to support the second line, and come initially from reliable, professional sources or first hand (in the case of the girl herself). And this is summed up in one line (correctly, as this isn't an article about her). On the other hand, the next line, countering this, is based on testimony covered in comparatively few articles, and is based on a single person, a co-worker, claiming that she didn't think the girl was traumatised in the days immediately after the event. It's textbook WP:UNDUE. We're not looking for truth. The question isn't whether both points are verifiable, as they are, but whether or not, by giving them both equal weight, we create a false impression of the sources. But if you don't see it, I'll just leave it for others to try and reach a consensus. - Bilby (talk) 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're spot on. Rebecca (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, The objection relating to BLP seems to have been conceded so I will move on to weight.

The problem is that we don't have "psychiatric reports" etc we just have "Clare"'s first hand testimony, and that she received compo and counselling. I have heard of no reports as you seem to be speaking of being available. If you have them, reference them. The recollections of the colleague is also first hand. Also you are wrong that reports she was bragging or lying and not traumatised come form a single co-worker. They come from several co-workers. You have overestimated the weight of evidence, and coverage, on one side and underestimated it on the other. Also wikipedia isn't Haiku, we can only deal with units as small as single sentences and not count syllables. It's also worth noting that statements about "Clare" bragging also call into questions her allegations of sexual assualt and her police complaint so should be balanced against that + the statement of trauma. So the weighting in the current article is different than how you have just presented it.

Spot on with what Rebecca?Archaic d00d (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting weight right is never easy. In relation to BLP, I still view it as gossip, yet I don't see that as fruitful, given that what constitutes gossip is open to interpretation. So to address your other points: the psychiatric reports are widely covered. The article being used to support the second line also states "Psychiatrists reported that she was suicidal, had cut her wrists several times and bought a rope to hang herself." Add that to the Four Corners report, Media Watch's coverage and more general coverage in the media. In relation to multiple co-workers, the same source is very clear - they spoke to one person, and that person states that the woman had bragged about the event.[1] There's only one person referred to. She does say that the woman "boasted to her workmates", but her workmates haven't said anything - only the one person has. And no, we don't weigh things up as a haiku. But we do need to ask if the coverage we write is fair, neutral, and properly covers the subject without making a false impression. That's not a product of length, but of content and weight. - Bilby (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this incident hasn't generated a stand-alone article similar to Bulldogs gang rape allegation. There are other players involved in varying ways, such as Brett Firman, Luke Branighan, Daniel Ninness and Paul Gallen. Coverage in Wikipedia is limited to the involvement of each player separately, in different articles. Writing an article about the incident and its consequences might also address some of the issues of breadth and emphasis discussed above. WWGB (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both you and Florrie there - the problem is that this isn't, and shouldn't be, the place to discuss the issue in enough depth to provide proper weight to all views. - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, I agree that balance isn't easy and I appreciate that you present reasons to back up your opinions and consider that trait rare. I think we don't have much more than "Clare" saying she was suicidal, and got counselling. Also more than one person is the source of these statements about Clare's behavour after the incident. I haven't included this in the main article because I think that one sentence is sufficient but "Some of his other workers are not as circumspect. One said she was a "silly cow", another that she "needed shooting"."http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25490942-5019031,00.html. Mr and Mrs Butterfield, the owners of the hotel, have also called her a lair. So it's not just Ms Boyd on the issue. "The consensus among hotel staff is that the trouble she got into was of her own making.". Some of these quotes are from anonymous sources so are like gossip, BUT your statement that these allegations come from only one source is easily disproven. So your premises are inaccurate. It's my judgement that including a single line to present these allegations is more balanced, than simply presenting the other side of the story.Archaic d00d (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, we have more than the alleged victim saying she was suicidal - we have psychiatric reports, quoted in the main article you're using and quoted and shown on both Four Corners and Media Watch saying she attempted suicide. That aside, the second article has anonymous co-workers insulting her, and the same person as the first making the boasting claim. The claim that the trouble she got into was her own making, even if true (anonymous source again), doesn't say anything about any trauma she suffered. But the core point is the same - in this article we have room for only a couple of sentences about her trauma, and devoting half of them to a single allegation of boasting made by one coworker is undue. In a longer article this can be raised, and comfortably balanced by other sources, but here it is unreasonable. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilby the statement that Clare bragged isn't simply to balance her story about being traumatised but calls into question her allegations of sexual assault, so it should be balanced against all of her accusations not merely the one about trauma. It is unreasonable to give the impression that all coverage was favourable to "Clare"'s version of events when staff, including the owners have contradicted her. That would truly be creating a false impression. The weighting argument is a red herring, it would be more unreasonable to include no contrary coverage.Archaic d00d (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But the statement doesn't address whether or not she was assaulted. It only states that she didn't appear to be traumatised in the four to five days after the event, and that she bragged about the night. This is a very different issue.

The contrary argument to whether she was assaulted comes from Matthew Johns, who said it was consensual. The staff don't help there, either - they are only providing, and can only provide, opinion. They weren't present, so can't address that issue. The closest we get is the claim "The Daily Telegraph has been told there was evidence that she had been telling her fellow employees she was going to "screw" some of the Cronulla players." But that is hearsay - "we've been told that someone has evidence that says..." And at best reveals intention, not consent. This is a BLP concerning some major allegations - we need to be very careful about how we read sources. - Bilby (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This article isn't supposed to (and doesn't) say anything either way. It just says 'X said Y' and is referenced to third-party, published sources. Where's the problem? I preferred this discussion back when it was about simply presenting facts instead of interpreting and reading further into them. Everone just settle down, this is getting really old.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, the relevant section is perfectly fine as far as I am concerned. Anything else should go elsewhere.  florrie  10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the part being discussed here has been removed until consensus is reached so it's not fine as it is now. I vote for re-inclusion as the way it is now everything is pointed one way with nothing pointed the other way (despite existing verifiable sources that are) in a case that is obviously not clear-cut AND in a biography of a living person.--Jeff79 (talk) 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a way forward is to re-examine this sentence:

However, a colleague of the woman involved has stated that she openly bragged about having sex with several players shortly after the incident, and stated that she did not appear to be traumatised for four or five days after the event.

Clearly, the statement about "bragging" is more than opinion, it is a statement of direct observation. Unless there is evidence that Tania Boyd was lying or deluded then there is no reason to dispute this assertion. The claim about "Clare" not being "traumatised", however, is an observation that a layperson is not qualified to make. That is a medical/psychological matter. In the interest of restoring some balance in the article, can everyone agree on something like:

However, a colleague of the woman involved has stated that she openly bragged about having sex with several players shortly after the incident."?

WWGB (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Openly bragged"? If you're going to go there, at least - as in Bilby's example - stick to the actual sources and actual quotes. Rebecca (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't work for me - it is still unbalanced, leaving implied what was previously said outright. If it was to be balanced you would have to note other facts, like suicide attempts and the police reports, and that would put too much weight on the whole issue for this article. Maybe others will see it differently, though. - Bilby (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A claim was made by a former work-mate that, shortly after the incident, the woman boasted/bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a post-episode statement released by Four Corners, it was stated in regard to "Clare's" state of mind that "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref] - I'd still rather it went into another article entirely.  florrie  16:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the wording, and would be willing to accept that, given your comment that the whole discussion would be better treated elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This would also be acceptable to me. Rebecca (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

If you want to mention the 4corners comments I don't necessarily agree but i'll compromise, but I think it should be shorter than florrie's version.

Colleagues have been quoted as saying that, shortly after the incident, the woman bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a statement released by Four Corners, "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened." Maybe something like thatArchaic d00d (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Colleagues? Only one has been quoted, Tania Boyd, as far as I am aware. If you are referring to One said she was a "silly cow", another that she "needed shooting" then nowhere in the article [2] does it say they were former colleagues of "Clare". They are current employees of Keith Burgess (Some of his other workers are not as circumspect.) If you want to bring the hotel owner into it, then you also need to include Clare's denial that she ever met the owners. More leads to more.  florrie  02:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with what you say again, but whatever, you haven't acknowledged that you arguing from appeal to consequences so I won't try. How about this "A former colleague went on record to say that, shortly after the incident, the woman bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a statement released by Four Corners, "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."Archaic d00d (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to consequences? What on earth are you on about?  florrie  08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

As previously, your revised version is not acceptable. It's interesting how you expect the article to take the coworker's claims as given, yet you're so hardline biased against believing Clare's version of what happened to herself. Rebecca (talk) 08:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition to her colleague Tania Boyd there's another article in which her employer, John Butterfield, called her "a liar".--Jeff79 (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

While there are issues with that claim (per Media Watch and Four Corners), either way it doesn't relate to "bragging". - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Butterfield was/is the hotel's owner and, if his comments are included, we'd then have to bring in the Four Corners counter statement - again. And it goes on and on.  florrie  10:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

florrie it only "gones on and on." because you seem to think that 4 corners or "Clare" should get the final say on any matter. The counter statement from 4 corners isn't widely published(in comparison to "Clare" bragging) so should get less weight, but you want it tacked in on the end. The reason that you think "Clare" should get the final say is because you think that people hearing about allegations that she bragged about the gang bang lead to people thinking stuff like "she lied for compensation" etc. Even though that was never in the article. Thinking something is or isn't true depending on whether you like the consequences is an appeal to consequences. Obviously a logical fallacy. I'm just telling you what I meant by an appeal to consequences, it's relevent to the discussion but i don't think further discussion of it will be fruitful.

Rebecca, when you use pronouns can you(like this!) please make it clear who are speaking to? Perhaps by starting the sentence with somone's name? What is unacceptable about the revision? Using a quote is not taking a co-workers claim as a given, as said before the article takes no position on their truthfulness.

"A former colleague went on record to say that, shortly after the incident, the woman bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a statement released by Four Corners, "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened." Soooo, what's wrong with that?Archaic d00d (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mate, don't try telling me you know what I think - you don't. Try reading Biographies of Living People and Neutral Point of View. On your reckoning, we should be reflecting the tabloid media's point of view only as six sensationalist versions clearly beat another version. What I am aiming for is balance and neutrality. As stated many times already, I believe this event should be expanded in an article other than Matty's. Personally, I wouldn't include the fourth sentence (The woman involved has disclosed that ...) in this article at all, but personal opinion doesn't, and shouldn't, cut it here.  florrie  02:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

florrie, I used the words "seem to think", and based it on what you said. From that you get offended? You should apologise for your tone.

Also I have disproven that these widely reported and referenced quotes violate BPL, and including them is in keeping with WP:NPOV, you sent me on a trip to read about seasons and calendars with WP:POV. At the actual NPOV page check this out WP:ASF "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.". Meaning we can say that Tania Boyd said "Clare" was bragging and was not distressed, but we couldn't have the sentence. ""Clare" was not distressed after the incident, and instead bragged openly.". We, as in Jeff79, WWGB, have kept to this convention from the beginning. If we talking about journalistic quality, 4corners would no longer be referenceable, but both tabliods and 4 corners qualify as WP:RS. Archaic d00d (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason that you think "Clare" should get the final say is because you think that people hearing about allegations that she bragged about the gang bang lead to people thinking stuff like "she lied for compensation" etc. No seems about that sentence, mate. I've had my say, I'll leave you to get on with finding consensus.  florrie  03:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true, qualified by the previous sentence as it is, it may have been presumptious of me to say you think, love. Anyway, it's unimportant. WP:ASF has clearly shows us the way.Archaic d00d (talk) 07:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Nyet. That this claim should be mentioned in the article is not in dispute; the weight to be attributed to it is. We've already had a NPOV version of that sentence suggested on this page; you instead argued for a weasel-word filled, POV version of the same. Rebecca (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca 1. That the claim should be included was in dispute, and you disputed it.

2. My version was shorter and be specific about what in it was a "weasel-word", and "POV".Archaic d00d (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You tried to blow it up to be more than it was, and got shot down by Florrie for it. It's plain to see that you do not understand the WP:BLP policy. Rebecca (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can't tell us where the weasal words are, I can only assume they don't exist. Your objections are meaningless until you justify them.Archaic d00d (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

So it's settled then? We can re-insert that article (as, according to Rebecca it's not in dispute anyway) as proposed above and make it balanced once more?--Jeff79 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't settled. I would be happy with Florrie's text, as would I presume Florrie. Archaic d00d's text is not backed up by the sources, and would insert a BLP violation into the article. If we go with Florrie's, then sure. If we don't, we have a problem. Rebecca (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm happiest with Florrie's text as well. - Bilby (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca,How is my shorter version not supported by the sources? How does it violate BPL? (when it's verified, widely published and a quote). Believe me there is no violation of BLP whatsoever, the newspapsers would be sued not wikipeida and they have better legal advice than us, add to the fact that even in the 4corners statement the point is more or less conceded.

and Bilby, don't you think a longer version is WP:UNDUE? As you argued earlier? Archaic d00d (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Less neutral, less accurate, not as well written. There is no way I would support that version. Rebecca (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebecca you completely failed to tell me how it violated BPL, or was not supported by the text. The only thing that is right is that "There is no way I would support that version.". That's because of your own prejudices and flaws.Archaic d00d (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible texts

In response to the above, I gather that there are two alternative versions of the text that should be inserted:

1. A claim was made by a former work-mate that, shortly after the incident, the woman boasted/bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a post-episode statement released by Four Corners, it was stated in regard to "Clare's" state of mind that "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref]
2. A former colleague went on record to say that, shortly after the incident, the woman bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a statement released by Four Corners, "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref]

The second is shorter, which is a plus. I still lean towards the first, though, as I generally prefer "claimed" to "went on record", and generally I think that the first reads slightly better, with the "in regard to ...". I'm not sure about the use of "Claire's", and would prefer just "her", simply because we haven't mentioned her name elsewhere in the article (not a privacy concern so much as remaining consistent). I'd also lean towards boasted over bragged, given that they mean the same thing but "boasted" sounds just a tad more encyclopedic.

I agree on both counts. "Went on record" makes problematic implications that "claimed" does not. "Boasted" also sounds better to me. Rebecca (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The first one is too long. There's no reason at all to think that "Clare" or "4 Corners"'s reply should be included, it certainly wasn't as notable (widely reported) as the claims that Clare bragged. Also the factual nature of the statement (which have a name attached) are not denied by 4 corner's counter statement, only explained. The explanation is not necessary nor notable. The claims that Clare bragged were made openly and widely reported, went on record is true. If you want to say "stated" that might be more neutral.Archaic d00d (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Notablity only applies to articles as a whole: content is more about balance, use of reliable sources, proper weight and NPOV. Personally, I still don't feel that the claim she bragged needs to be there at all, but my understanding is that there is a desire to include it, so I support the idea of balance being provided by the 4 Corners response. Anyway, would you be happy with: A former colleague stated that, shortly after the incident, the woman boasted about having sex with several players.[ref] In response, a statement released by Four Corners related how the New Zealand police "... noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref] - Bilby (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.[2]" Since the 4 Corners counter statement (which agrees with the facts presented on the record) is not independent it's highly likely it shouldn't be included at all. Further, notability is measured by coverage meaning that the more heavily covered statements about "Clare" bragging are more notable (and should have more weight i.e. take up more space etc) than 4 corners counter statement. Bilby, your objections about notability, weight, NPV are logically inconsistent. The people agreeing with you haven't made a single real point, take a look at what you are saying and what your agenda is.Archaic d00d (talk) 05:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Archaic d00d, I think there may be a bit of confusion. I don't have an agenda here, as I don't follow Rugby (wrong state), and my only interest here is making sure we stick to WP:BLP. That said, at the moment the article is protected in a version which works for me, but I'd rather have a version which works for everyone, hence I'm trying to find consensus. To correct your statement above, I presume that you're quoting from WP:NOTE, which is fine. But WP:NOTE only refers to the subject of an article, not the content, and states: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." Content is governed by other policies, not notability.

Anyway, Jeff79 is happy with

• A former colleague claimed that, shortly after the incident, the woman bragged about having sex with several players.[ref] In a statement released by Four Corners, "...the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref].

I prefer:

• A former colleague stated that, shortly after the incident, the woman boasted about having sex with several players.[ref] In response, a statement released by Four Corners related how the New Zealand police "... noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened."[ref].

As a compromise. But if you'd really rather the former than I'm willing to accept that if it let's us move on. Are you happy with either? - Bilby (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilby, i'm not even talking about the text anymore, I've disproven your idea of notability. Are the police psychologists? Was what they said widely reported? They aren't experts and there statements weren't notable. Contrast that with the conceded and widely reported statement about "Clare" bragging. There's no confusion from me, I've disproven your objections, once I've done that there's nothing left to talk about but you and your motives, because it's not BLP (disproven), notability (disproven), weight (disproven). I've flat out disproven your objections about notability, weight etc. It's over. The only thing left to talk about is the motives of the editors who are vandalising this article. Archaic d00d (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that we're not making any progress again. If you don't like either text then that's fine. I guess we'll let it sit, or find some other method of working out where consensus lies at a later date. I'm happy with the two versions above, given my preference for the second, should things progress further. - Bilby (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"I still don't feel that the claim she bragged needs to be there at all" Of course you don't, that would imply that Clare not only consented but enjoyed what went on, was proud of what went on. It also gives more weight to the statements that she made a habit of these kinds of meetings with professional Footballers, an obsessive infatuation it would seem. And that goes against all your agendas. What a surprise, Bilby doesn't feel it needs to be there at all.. I wonder.. Are we becoming a nation of cowards? EhuangZhang (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Best to just limit this discussion to the article and its content. While I don't think the additional qualifier to her bragging of the possibility that it was just a mechanism for coping with the trauma needs to be there, I will accept it if it means people will stop removing the cited fact that she bragged. So can we just shoot this in the head and re-add it as per the 2nd suggestion above with 'claimed' instead of 'went on record'?--Jeff79 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not my preferred wording, but as per above I'm happy to go with it if need be. (My issue is simply that alternatives read better, not particularly with the content). - Bilby (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So the next step is to request an administrator to edit it? Or do we wanna go ahead and request for it to be unprotected?Jeff79 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked SoWhy, as the admin who protected the page, and he chose to unprotect. Thus I've added the text as discussed. - Bilby (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ACC

I would like to change the mention of 'receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand Government' to 'receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation' or 'receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand government's Accident Compensation Corporation' or something similar. I feel this is of relevance because 1) For a New Zealander, it helps them understand who was paying her, most can probably guess it's the ACC but they should not have to guess 2) For a non-New Zealander, they can explore the ACC further to help them understand who's paying her, what their responsibilities are for etc and why the government is involved at all, this is quite important since in many countries, the government may have limited or no involvement in such matters. While the current sources don't mention the ACC at all, several do e.g. [3] [4]. I don't feel the added length is a significant problem, or that this is needless trivia for the reasons I've explained. Nil Einne (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I think this makes sense - "New Zealand Government" is vague, and could mean any number of things - best to clarify the reference. Rebecca (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. - Bilby (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this has been here for a while, is anyone unhappy about requesting the change from:

receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand Government

to:

receiving financial support and counselling from the New Zealand Accident Compensation Corporation

as suggested by Nil Einne, above? If there's no problem, it seems like a fairly minor change to make, so I'll put in a request. - Bilby (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.  florrie  10:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Matthew Johns. 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/20090517105159/http://www.leaguehq.com.au:80/articles/2009/05/14/1241894109113.html to http://www.leaguehq.com.au/articles/2009/05/14/1241894109113.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090516182421/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25469726-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25469726-661,00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 05:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Matthew Johns. 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/20090510235628/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25446486-5001021,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25446486-5001021,00.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 07:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Matthew Johns. 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/20081009164446/http://www.yesterdayshero.com.au/PlayerProfile_Matthew-Johns_246.aspx to http://www.yesterdayshero.com.au/PlayerProfile_Matthew-Johns_246.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090521131106/http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813420 to http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813420
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071004201347/http://www.stateoforigin.com.au/SOOgame/PlayerDetails.aspx?Pid=174 to http://www.stateoforigin.com.au/SOOgame/PlayerDetails.aspx?Pid=174
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070328123019/http://www.stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/players/Matthew_Johns.html to http://stats.rleague.com/rl/scorers/players/Matthew_Johns.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)