Talk:Prosecution of Daniel Duggan
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Removal of a significant POV
edit@Googleguy007: Hi, I just saw that you are objecting to the well-cited point of view that Duggan has not yet been found guilty in court and has no criminal history anywhere in the globe. What purpose do your reverts serve? The text's NPOV diminishes when a key POV is removed, especially in BLP articles. --Mhhossein talk 06:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I am removing the content for NPOV, adding "they have not proven it in a court of law" after "he was accused" serves no informative purpose (the phrase "accused" instead of "convicted" carries all the information needed there). Information about him not having been arrested previously may be relevant elsewhere, but putting it directly after his prisoner status serves only to attempt to cast doubt on the validity of that in wiki-voice. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Umm...I believe your removals are against BLP cautions. All what you removed were backed by reliable sources. For instance:
"Despite never having been convicted of a crime in any country, Duggan has been classified as an Extreme High Risk Restricted (EHRR) and Protection Non-Association (PRNA) prisoner. He is currently being held in a two-metre-by-four-metre cell at Silverwater in Sydney’s west."
[1] There should be a stronger motivation than merely 'casting doubt'. --Mhhossein talk 06:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)- Attempting to cast doubt on his status in wikivoice is an NPOV violation. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello again, I have added 'reportedly' to the sentence. There's no wikivoice. --Mhhossein talk 12:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Googleguy007: I was a bit hopeless when seeing the change was just reverted by you in less than two hours. Your revert was not a constructive move. My change was quit in line with WP:VOICE since it was fully supported by a reliable source and featured required attributions. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- It was constructive as it removed your NPOV phrasing. It’s fine to say that he had not been arrested previously, but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly. Please stop edit warring to include your changes Googleguy007 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Once again, it is the Guardian source[2] that is "putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner", NOT me. I have already provided you with the full quotation from the source and your ignoring of that notification is some kind of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Do you have any objections with the wording of the Guardian source? --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- I dont have any issues with the wording of the guardian themselves, as they are an outside source, and I see no issues with an outside source making accusatory implications in its textual voice. However transcribing that text to wikipedia would be improper, as it makes an accusatory implication in wikipedias textual voice, which violates NPOV. It would be fine to say (with sources) that "the australian government has been criticised by [xyz] for treating duggan as a high risk prisoner despite the fact that he has never been convicted of a crime before", but not to imply criticism. It would also be fine to include the fact that he has never been arrested before in a natural place in the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)A
- Your suggestion is an WP:Original Research. We can not really say that the Guardian source is "criticizing" the Australian government. Again; "...but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly" is not a substantiated objection here since the exact wording of the source is against what your comments try to imply. An now, your new suggestion goes against OR. On the contrary, my edit, which you swiftly reverted, is portraying the things as it is while making proper attributions by stating "reportedly". --Mhhossein talk 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your edit, which I swiftly reverted, made an NPOV implication in wikivoice. It is not OR to understand the basics of how the english language works, words can imply things without explicitly stating them, the sentence implies that he should not have the prisoner status he does, which should not be stated in wikivoice. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- It was not being stated in wikivoice due to "reportedly" in the sentence. --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your comments are really stonewalling the consensus building process; You said "words can imply things without explicitly stating them". It shows you need to review the WP:OR once again more accurately. Per WP:OR
"Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."
Also it reads"do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
--Mhhossein talk 07:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your edit, which I swiftly reverted, made an NPOV implication in wikivoice. It is not OR to understand the basics of how the english language works, words can imply things without explicitly stating them, the sentence implies that he should not have the prisoner status he does, which should not be stated in wikivoice. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your suggestion is an WP:Original Research. We can not really say that the Guardian source is "criticizing" the Australian government. Again; "...but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly" is not a substantiated objection here since the exact wording of the source is against what your comments try to imply. An now, your new suggestion goes against OR. On the contrary, my edit, which you swiftly reverted, is portraying the things as it is while making proper attributions by stating "reportedly". --Mhhossein talk 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- I dont have any issues with the wording of the guardian themselves, as they are an outside source, and I see no issues with an outside source making accusatory implications in its textual voice. However transcribing that text to wikipedia would be improper, as it makes an accusatory implication in wikipedias textual voice, which violates NPOV. It would be fine to say (with sources) that "the australian government has been criticised by [xyz] for treating duggan as a high risk prisoner despite the fact that he has never been convicted of a crime before", but not to imply criticism. It would also be fine to include the fact that he has never been arrested before in a natural place in the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)A
- Once again, it is the Guardian source[2] that is "putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner", NOT me. I have already provided you with the full quotation from the source and your ignoring of that notification is some kind of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Do you have any objections with the wording of the Guardian source? --Mhhossein talk 06:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- It was constructive as it removed your NPOV phrasing. It’s fine to say that he had not been arrested previously, but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly. Please stop edit warring to include your changes Googleguy007 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Attempting to cast doubt on his status in wikivoice is an NPOV violation. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Umm...I believe your removals are against BLP cautions. All what you removed were backed by reliable sources. For instance:
Googleguy007: Your revert, without TP discussion, was a clear edit war. The implication you referred to here in your edit summary is fully supported by the Guardian source and my edit is in line with the Guardian sourcing. The Guardian source says "Despite never having been convicted of a crime in any country, Duggan has been classified as an Extreme High Risk Restricted (EHRR) and Protection Non-Association (PRNA) prisoner. He is currently being held in a two-metre-by-four-metre cell at Silverwater in Sydney’s west"
and what I added to the text fully portrays the same thing while featuring the required attributions to the Guardian. You have received two edit war templates from admins and unfortunately still tend to edit war here. --Mhhossein talk 09:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
- Your revert of me constitutes edit warring by your definition then. You are blatantly POV pushing. I am creating an RFC Googleguy007 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 Response to third opinion request (An NPOV dispute involving the implications of a certain phrasing):
|
| I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Prosecution of Daniel Duggan and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
|
The current sentence in the article— |
- Googleguy007: Despite the previous warning [3], you are again making personal attacks against me in this comment. I'm not sure why this sort of battle ground language is adopted by you, but would like to ask you for the LAST time to respect the WP:NPA measures and avoid commenting on the users. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not violating NPA, my accusations of POV pushing are de-facto supported by the edits which I am refering to. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- You had undone my edit without putting a single word on the TP explaining why the revert. Anyway, the third opinion is supporting the current sentence. Best. --Mhhossein talk 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- So I just independently re-enacted the obviously correct changes that Googleguy has been pushing for. Then I came here and learned that apparently it is literally just one guy enforcing this absurdity, so I was inspired to be bolder. The entire paragraph is ridiculously biased and I will be deleting it. It is just a laundry list of defence-side complaints presented with absolutely zero effort at verification or context, to the point of e.g. promoting an unverified accusation that Duggan is being denied appropriate medical treatment. The "despite being never convicted" is just another one of these such. It is the defence, not the prison authorities, who introduced the idea that Duggan is being held in a high-security prison because he is somehow seen as exceptionally incorrigible or prone to criminality, as opposed to for other reasons such as flight risks, fear of his disclosing further national security information, etc. It is just a dumb misdirection tactic and there is no reason for a neutral encyclopedia as opposed to a Guardian writer to take it seriously at all. 2607:FEA8:2A60:8200:E4D8:E345:9F19:9A7F (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest. But your move clearly goes against the 3rd opinion recently offered to settle a very similar content issue. I suggest avoid making Original Research for advancing your editing goals here. For instance,
" It is the defence, not the prison authorities,..."
is an original research which should not be taken account when there are not established reliable sources saying so. You are invited to try building consensus by offering reliable sources directly related to this page. --Mhhossein talk 13:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your interest. But your move clearly goes against the 3rd opinion recently offered to settle a very similar content issue. I suggest avoid making Original Research for advancing your editing goals here. For instance,
- So I just independently re-enacted the obviously correct changes that Googleguy has been pushing for. Then I came here and learned that apparently it is literally just one guy enforcing this absurdity, so I was inspired to be bolder. The entire paragraph is ridiculously biased and I will be deleting it. It is just a laundry list of defence-side complaints presented with absolutely zero effort at verification or context, to the point of e.g. promoting an unverified accusation that Duggan is being denied appropriate medical treatment. The "despite being never convicted" is just another one of these such. It is the defence, not the prison authorities, who introduced the idea that Duggan is being held in a high-security prison because he is somehow seen as exceptionally incorrigible or prone to criminality, as opposed to for other reasons such as flight risks, fear of his disclosing further national security information, etc. It is just a dumb misdirection tactic and there is no reason for a neutral encyclopedia as opposed to a Guardian writer to take it seriously at all. 2607:FEA8:2A60:8200:E4D8:E345:9F19:9A7F (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- You had undone my edit without putting a single word on the TP explaining why the revert. Anyway, the third opinion is supporting the current sentence. Best. --Mhhossein talk 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- I am not violating NPA, my accusations of POV pushing are de-facto supported by the edits which I am refering to. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Googleguy007: Despite the previous warning [3], you are again making personal attacks against me in this comment. I'm not sure why this sort of battle ground language is adopted by you, but would like to ask you for the LAST time to respect the WP:NPA measures and avoid commenting on the users. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Recent edit wars
editA user is seemingly trying to preserve his desired version of the page by conducting mass edits and reverting them back in the article when they encounter objection by other editors. It is interesting to note that hi edits are only in this page ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. To keep track of the edits we can note the following: first round of DoItForDan's edits identified as vandalism by User:ClueBot NG. DFD making the mass changes again, prompting these maintenance changes by User:GünniX. I restored the long standing version since none of the changes by DoItForDan was discussed on the talk page. However, DoItForDan restored his changes again with me restoring the longstanding version again. Further undiscussed changes can be counted as edit war and is reportable to WP:ANI. --Mhhossein talk 13:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
funding-setback
edit- https://archive.is/HGkrK
- https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8449786/ex-pilot-facing-extradition-hit-with-funding-setback/
2601:646:201:57F0:E1B1:82AC:99EA:67B6 (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2024 (UTC)