Talk:Rumsfeld's Australia visit sparks protests

Tag and Dash

It's not constructive nor good ettiquette. Please explain what the npov concerns are? Neutralizer 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You are really angering me. If you're not even going to be courteous and give people time to post a message on the talk page, why do you even expect a response? --Mrmiscellanious 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How about posting an explanation before tagging. Just as a measure of politeness. --vonbergm 22:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

How about waiting for it to be posted, vonbergm? It didn't take me that long to put it up here. Patience = courtesy. No courtesy, as shown in both your and Neutralizer's comments, are extremely poor in respect. --Mrmiscellanious 22:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

The focus of this story needs to be balanced. The title features a very little detail of the story, and is also sporting quite a few items supporting the protesters' POV. For instance:

Quote

---

Police removed and then later arrested the man who allegedly clashed with a sole pro-US demonstrator.

Quote

---

Yesterday, SA's assistant police commissioner described Mr Rumsfeld as one of the world's top terrorist targets.

Alright, not POV - I just don't like how it's formulated.

Quote

---

Parliamentary officials had originally banned the rally, saying demonstrators would be arrested if they went ahead with the protest. But South Australian parliamentary speaker Bob Such yesterday said the protest may proceed.

Dr Such said the initial ban was made on advice from police. But he said he was subsequently advised that he could consider applications from people wanting to protest during the visit.

The Rice Rumsfeld Reception Committee said the decision to lift the ban was a "victory for democracy and the right to dissent".

Sandra Kanck described the ban as foolish and a dangerous attack on free speech. Police said they would not tolerate violent protests.

Quote

---

South Australian Greens MP Kris Hanna said Mr Rumsfeld was a symbol of that power and money which runs the United States and Australia.

A few items to fix before sending it back to publish or removing NPOV tag. --Mrmiscellanious 20:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So, um, what is the problem with these quotes? Or are you saying that the article contains too much of the protestors POV, and not enough of the POV of those who disagree with the protestors? - Borofkin 23:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for not pointing that out - just try to balance it more with some items from other Australian politicians, etc. --Mrmiscellanious 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added comments from Defence Minister Robert Hill responding to the David Hicks stuff, and Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock responding to the anti-terror/sedition laws stuff. The only bit that lacks a government response is this: "They are willing to kill, they are willing to murder innocent civilians by the tens of thousands to exploit the resources of other countries and sacrifice even their own soldiers for these goals of war and expropriation." Since she is talking about Rummy and the US in general, it would perhaps be best to find some comments from them denying that they are murderers of innocent civilians. - Borofkin 01:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that he would have a direct response to the politician, however the White House does hold a daily(?) press conference. I'll dig through it tonight and see if McClellan has mentioned anything in response to the quote or protest. --Mrmiscellanious 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you consider the article for removal of the NPOV tag? With the addition of quotes from two government ministers, it is now quite balanced in my opinion. - Borofkin 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe MrM's concerns have been addressed; so as he states above; "A few items to fix before sending it back to publish or removing NPOV tag."; it can now be published and the tag removed. In the future; please note that there is no need to wait for the tagger's approval before removing a tag. [1]. Neutralizer 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

nearly there

I think this is a good piece of reporting and nearly there. Suggest page move to Large protests as Donald Rumsfeld visits South Australia: straighter headline. ok? --Cmwhite

suggestions

suggested changes to first section: apologies for not being bold but I can't edit such a large article on my machine :)

United States Defence Secretary Donald_Rumsfeld was called a war criminal by 500 anti-war demonstrators at a rally on the steps outside South Australia's Parliament House today. Senior members of the United States government are on a two-day visit to Adelaide for the annual Australian and US ministerial consultations, known as AUSMIN. The rally also called for the freeing of Australian man David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay jail. Australian Democrats SA leader Sandra Kanck said the rally was originally intended to protest at the proposed new terror laws. "We would not need terror laws if our Prime Minister had not tied us to the coat tails of George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld," she said. "I have been delighted to hear much sedition here today and I have been delighted to see placards that are saying seditious things. "But by Christmas this may not be allowed in our democracy." Mr Rumsfeld and his delegation arrived at Adelaide Airport this morning amid tight security. Mr Rumsfeld will attend the Australia-United States Ministerial Meeting, to be hosted by Defence Minister Robert Hill and Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer. (cut this next bit, it's over the top and doesn't have a direct reference) Deputy US Secretary of State Bob Zoellick will also take part. Police in Adelaide have thrown a tight security net around the conference venue and hotel where the guests will stay, with up to 500 officers involved. SA's assistant police commissioner has described Mr Rumsfeld as one of the world's top terrorist targets.

Reporting on Protests

Personally I thought the article focused on the concerns of the protesters. Mainly because the article is a news story ABOUT the protest. IMHO what mainstream (corporate POV) journalism fails to do in most reportage of demonstrations is put across the protesters concerns - the WHY in in the 5 Ws. Generally corp media take the "protesters violent" perspective, and focus on the threat to the status quo. I fully understand wikinews NPOV issues, yet I fail to see why this article is problematic. I'm keen to write news for this site, but am concerned that my efforts will be killed in a crusade of unecessary NPOV... --elliot_k 02:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It makes reporting on protests much harder, eh? We struck this problem with Hundreds of thousands rally in Australia against IR legislation - is it an article about the protest, or is it an article about the issue about which the protestors are attempting to raise awareness? The problem is that if we quote protestors criticising the government, then we need to include the other viewpoint, otherwise we're just a mouthpiece for the protestors. - Borofkin 03:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right. Quotes about the reasons and viewpoints are very reasonable, and are what the mainstream tend to ignore, but very excitable comments are unnecessary, IMO. I think this has been balanced very well, particularly with the terror concerns, when we should definitely include the defences of those in authority. But any protest that attracts hundreds or thousands of people shows that people care about an issue and so that issue should be aired. ClareWhite 15:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Articulation

Further... What is the best etiquette for communicating these concerns? Is this the preferred method? Discussion on the talks page? Or do I use the User's talks page? --elliot_k 03:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Water cooler is the best place. Allready the number of tag&dashs and policy on detecting institutional bias is debated. I strongly welcome these discussions. International 15:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

move?

United States Defence Secretary Donald_Rumsfeld was called a war criminal by 500 anti-war. i dont think this accusation really deserves the first sentence. Other wise a great article and should be published. --Whywhywhy 11:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Fixed and published. If someone dont like it, change back. Imho it is a good article but as I said before, my English is far from perfect. Anybody copyedit my edits? International 14:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)