Talk:Carnival style protest held in Sydney

Original Reporting notes

I was at the protest and all observations in the story so far are my own.

I have heaps of photos, plus 3 minutes of video footage of the barricades being pulled down. Alas, I'm in an Internet cafe at the moment, and won't be able to upload them until I get to work tommorrow.

- Borofkin 11:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you please clarify one thing for me? The protesters were protesting a Global CEO event, yet they were accusing the conference attendees of being neo-liberal? -- NGerda 01:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yep. - Borofkin 01:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, fom a poltical science perspective, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. :D Thanks for reporting on it, though ;) -- NGerda 02:34, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why? The term is certainly disputed, however by most definitions the conference attendees, as well as George W. Bush, John Howard, etc, are neo-liberals. Ronnie Reagan and Maggie Thatcher are the people most often associated with the ideology. Wikipedia has this definition: "Perhaps most often neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that has had major implications for government policies beginning in the 1970s – and increasingly prominent since 1980 – that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the economy (that complements private initiative), focusing instead on achieving progress and even social justice by encouraging free-market methods and fewer restrictions on business operations and economic development. Supporters argue that by implementing business-friendly policies, a society can assure that its businesses grow, creating jobs and other economic benefits which improve the welfare of the entire economy."

You may be confusing the term with the popular American usage of the word "liberal". - Borofkin 02:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

See neoliberalism and neoconservatism. -- NGerda 02:52, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I learned about this exact subject today in Political Science 150, if I hadn't I would be so sure of myself. Conservatives argue for less government intervention in the economic area, while liberals argue for more enviornmental regulation of business. -- NGerda 02:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly no expert. The quote that I have given came from Neoliberalism. In a nutshell, it is the application of liberalism to economic theory: individual actors, small state, free market. You should also check out the Wikipedia articles on Liberalism and American Liberalism. The word means different things in different countries. - Borofkin 04:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

What I learned today is that the application of liberalism to economic theory is exactly what conservatism is. Best of luck to you, NGerda 04:06, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

My brain hurts. Either way, our take on neoliberalism is irrelevent. It's the term that the speakers were using. - Borofkin 04:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll just add a Wikipedia link to the term in the article. And check out the Main Page Redesign Proposal! -- NGerda 04:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• I can save you fellows decades of wasted time; but if your brain already hurts, you can't take this:) The facade/scam is that the controllers use BOTH liberalism and conservatism AT THE SAME TIME to further their globalization/police state project...hence the identical foreign policies of both Bush and Kerry. The controllers have been using Hegelian dialectic engagement for hundreds of years now.This book by a dead Stanford Univ. Economics research fellow Antony Sutton shows in detail how the dialectic approach is being used against the people systematically and relentlessly. Haven't you ever wondered why; as soon as our global enemy ,USSR, evaporated; another global enemy (Islamic Jihadism) stepped in so quickly?[[1]] Paulrevere2005 12:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Reflection on original reporting

In the end I'm dissapointed with this article. I spent too much time trying to take pictures (which aren't very good), and not enough time recording the content. I've looked at all the mainstream news sources, and Sydney Indymedia (who had a van and wireless internet connection at the event), and there is not a single quote from any of the protest speakers. Everyone, including Indymedia, has focussed on a toppled barricade, a 5 minute scuffle between a tiny minority of protestors and police, and a couple of arrests.

Next time I reckon I'll take a tape recorder and record all the speeches, so that I can get some proper, lengthy quotes, and actually give our readers some idea of what the protest is about. This is the crucial information that is still lacking, accross all news sources.

I'm done with this article, you may do with it what you will. - Borofkin 04:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As a sentiment to your oustanding feat of journalism, I shall leave it as it is. -- NGerda 04:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I encourage you to mercilessly edit, improve, and make-neutral. The community is the reason I contribute to Wikinews and not Indymedia. - Borofkin 04:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, let me be known that I damn-near got killed by a police horse when they were forming the line infront of the gap in the barricade. The lengths I go to for a little bit of NPOV news. :-) - Borofkin 04:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

When I try my best, it's all I can do. When others try their best I respect that immensely. - Edbrown05

Borofkin, you're our most active field reporter right now, and I thank you very much for that ;) -- NGerda 06:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• The article is great. I feel like I'm there; and the fact you're not happy with it is the mark of a true "artist". Thanks, Paulrevere2005 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments for development

Points the protest for people to work with (I'm new to the wiki...):

- Protesters broke through the fence protecting the opera house - The conference was secretly moved to another location at the airport terminal, and this information was witheld from the public in the interests of security - A man jumped the fence, and the hundreds of police officers on duty unleashed two dogs on the man, who was mauled - SBS (Australia) claims that there were as many police as protesters. This is a fair estimate, given that there were helicopters, mounted police and a ground force entirely surroundin the protesters. - Six people were arrested (ABC news) - The aims of the protest were varied. View included outrage at the use of a public space for an exclusive conference, and at the actions of the politicians and companies represented at the conference.

The SMH claims there were 500 protesters (i think according to police). That is far less than the number of police. 'mauled'? And one final thing: none of the articles mention once what the actual Forbes conference dealt with. It has been nothing but advocacy for the protests. You can find in the SMH a quote by forbes himself which made me giggle. Something about how the protestors are about being against words like 'globalisation'. hehehe... typical teenagers, they aren't for anything, but only against their own frustrated views of the world. Let's try to make all this hype on the protests into something that readers can digest and form their own opinions on, instead of the typical back and forth quoting of either side. Information please, not just vauge opinions.

Hi! Welcome to Wikinews! I've added some information that you have suggested, however I encourage you to jump in and edit the article itself. Articles on Wikinews develop collaboratively, with the goal of achieving consensus as to what they should say. The article contents belong to everyone in the Wikinews community (of which you are a part), and you have just as much right to make changes as I or anyone else. I hope you stick around... - Borofkin 00:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of 'were described as neo-liberals, or "free market freaks"'

Hi... I've reverted this edit for the moment, because I don't see why the sentence shouldn't be included. I watched the speeches, and the speakers certainly described the conference attendees as "neo-liberals", and "free market freaks". The way that it was reworded it sounded like a statement of fact, rather than a statement about the speakers opinions.

I'm happy to discuss the issue though. Please provide some reasons on this talk page if you still think that your change should be made... - Borofkin 12:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

-Ah, misread there. I thought you yourself were referring to the conference attendees as so, not the speakers. My apologies.

No worries. Thanks for jumping in there and fixing something that you thought was wrong - that's what the Wiki is all about. I would, of course, have never described the conference attendees as such, because as an impartial Wikinews reporter, I don't have an opinion. :--) - Borofkin 12:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)