Talk:'Guantanamo'-style detention facility under construction on Australian Island

We'll have to delete these images unless they're under a free license.--Eloquence 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we can claim fair use at least for the map, as it is a work of the Australian government and thus subject to Crown Copyright. The second image seems to be taken by a Australian senator so might apply. Not sure about the third one though, as no real source is given. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * throw them away if you like. the third is from wikipedia. i thought i put relevant links to them. note: image tags are difficult to decipher. --elliot_k 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * interesting that you removed the WIKIPEDIA image. --elliot_k 18:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * re on your talk --Deprifry|+T+ 18:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This is an immigration centre, not a military/terrorist centre like guantanomo bay! --Ajdlinux 09:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless according to some sources, there seem to be comparisons to Guantanamo. That said, I think your NPOV label applies, the article could use some loving in that area. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The term should be backed up with a literal quote. At the moment, it seems to be something someone said, but the person is paraphrased, or perhaps the author invented it .. definitely needs attributation, and if not given as a direct quote, needs to be taken out of the headline as it is confusing for a reader. Readers will search the story for the quote it's lifted from, and not finding one, assume the author made it up. -- Simeon 12:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems like the titles of at least a few articles in the sources list use the name Guantanamo. That was the source of my comment. -- IlyaHaykinson 12:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a bit ridiculous. But for pedantism's sake: I've added the "guantanamo" quote. Please remove the NPOV tag now... Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17383831-2,00.html --elliot_k 04:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It has a literal quote in the first sentence, but it doesn't identify the source.. a mistake which should be fixed. Its also wise to make some comment about the popular feelings towards immigrants in Australia. I got the impression that "this is just the government trying to prevent refugees", but its almost surely a consequence of the general Australian populations view of immigrants. Nyarlathotep 12:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Develop -- Housekeeping
I have tagged this article develop because it was "published" but disputed -- so it was not truly published... Don't want article to get lost. I've not read the article and I'm not making any judgement on content.
 * So whats the dispute now? Who is disputing NPOV? Why cant you remove the tag? Will take about 3-4 minutes to read the thing! Xmas Island folks have called the centre a "Guantanamo-style" facility. They said it - not the reporter... What is the problem here? --elliot_k 08:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You should not generally expect taggers to remove the tags themselves, as those who make the most use of tags often never look at the article again until after it is published again, which necessitates having the tag removed first.
 * To be polite, you should make a serious effort to correct any problems you can find, when you remove a tag to an article which you wrote. You should *never* be banned for removing a tag as part of a major change to the article, solong as your actually addressing the tag's issue.  Of course, you could just ask another to remove the tag instead if you make only small changes & feel they are sufficent.  It's obviously also fine to "voice your opinion" on an article which you have not written, by removing a tag which you feel has been addressed by other people's edits.  You may notice that, I removed the npov tag here at the same time as I made additional NPOV complaints above.  That was just a way of saying, "It really should improve more NPOV-wize, but the specific issues which someone felt warneted the tag were addressed."  Nyarlathotep 16:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)