Talk:Nationwide rallies against anti-terror laws held in Australia

Original reporting

The convention for articles that contain original reporting (i.e. when a Wikinews contributor is reporting events that they personally witnessed, interviews, etc) is to add an "Original reporting" section at the top of the talk page with a brief description of what form the original reporting took. Everything in a Wikinews article needs to be sourced, and in the case of original reporting, the source is the Wikinews Contributor, and we know this because of their comments on the talk page. In this case, it appears that CitizenBruce attended the protest, observed, recorded the speeches, and made a rough count. Is this correct? - Borofkin 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of term "antiwar"

Is "antiwar" accurate? Anti-government seems a more justifiable description - there is no mention of any opposition to war, instead the only material provided is critical of the new anti-terror bills introduced to Parliament. --Skyring 07:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, anti-War on terror? - 24.85.85.76 07:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that, but it seems rather POV. I am sure that the protesters are not supporting terrorism, as would be implied. Looking at this ABC news story, the only mention of war is in the organising groups - quite plainly the protest was aimed at erosion of civil liberties and industrial reform. The attendance figure is shown as one thousand. --Skyring 07:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I actually did my own count. I counted approxiamately 148 ranks of 7 to 10 people which is probably a little over a thousand. --CitizenBruce 11:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the ant-terror focus muddies the waters. The laws are very topical at the moment. Note though that I have added some material which more direclty addressed the Iraq since you posted that comment (I think). --CitizenBruce 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Great picture!

Excellent article illustration! --Skyring 07:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. All credit to the protester and whoever devised the idea (there was a group of them wearing the same gag). --CitizenBruce 10:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, great gag, huh? The "gag" picture is wonderful front page stuff. Powerful image, says volumes without a word. The crowd scene is blah. If you take a picture of a protest march the people aren't important - the banners tell the story. Get out in front, get the message on the main banner. In this shot none of the banners and placards are legible - it's just a bunch of people, some of them smiling at the camera. --Skyring 15:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote from howard

Great work with this article! I've added a quote from Howard to balance things out a bit.... - Borofkin 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)