 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
POV tag
editWhile removing other tags, I have left the POV tag. The article largely reflects the point of view of Hamish McDonald, who wrote the book Framed about the case and who obviously believes the Croatian Six were innocent. McDonald is an experienced journalist, and he is published in the Sydney Morning Herald, but he is only one person. The only other source we have is Scoop (website) which is not considered a reliable source: [1][2] I have edited the text for neutrality and added in the fact they failed in their appeal and their application for judicial review, but it would be good to have a broader range of sources.
It is also problematic that the article places a lot of weight on the opinion of John Schindler, who McDonald describes as "a leading American counter-terrorism expert". According to the National Review, Schindler, "a former analyst at the National Security Agency, a former professor at the Naval War College, and a self-proclaimed 'sometime provocateur,' fires off an average of more than 100 tweets a day...Schindler has amassed a loyal following, particularly among conservatives, for his blunt missives on cyber-security, foreign policy, and intelligence".[3]. (Note that professor is a less prestigious title in the US than in Australia.) He has blogged on the case, citing both McDonald and the Scoop journalist.[4] Clearly he is an opinionated person, but I'm not sure that he's a leading expert on anything, still less on a case in Australia in 1981.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)