Talk:UN accuses Australia of 'demonising asylum seekers'

Unsourced claim
The article makes an unsourced claim of mistreatment. "The mistreatment of refugees was today reinforced with the release of an Australian Rights Commission (sic) report, which revealed extensive problems of self-harm and depression among detainees at the Villawood Detention Centre in Sydney." This assertion is not backed up by the source articles and is POV. Even the Australian Human Rights Commission has stated on their website that “Staff at the Villawood detention facilities should be acknowledged for their efforts to provide appropriate services and conditions, but the mental health impacts of prolonged detention cannot be overcome by these efforts alone.”Australian Human Rights Commission Ozdaren (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First source mentions the Australian HRC. And, they're sources, not references. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes and nowhere does it mention 'mistreatment'. Mistreatment is POV by the author (s) of the wikinews story and is not backed up by the 'sources'. Surely such a controversial assertion would be verified by checking the source material? Ozdaren (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And... I'm not sure of the wikinews protocols but the 'comments' (Indonesian pickpockets) written below are offensive commentary not an editorial discussion. I'm just wondering what's the most appropriate way to remove them. Ozdaren (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * OK I deleted it. Ozdaren (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Those were fine to remove from here; but, if placed in the comments namespace don't touch. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The POV claim of mistreatment that does not appear in the source articles has been reinstated by user Brian McNeil. I will shortly remove this assertion again unless new information or reasons can be provided to retain it. Ozdaren (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Per WN:ARCHIVE: Neither you, we, nor anyone else makes substantive changes more than 24 hours after publication. A correction may later be issued if community consensus determines such is needed.  Note, however, that even a current absence from the source is not always positive evidence of misstatement, since sources do sometimes change after information in them has already been used to verify an article during review.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The source articles have not been changed. It's a shame that such a glaring and easily verifiable POV was allowed to go through. It somewhat weakens wikinews' credibility. If a claim of mistreatment is made by an editor then information to support this should be provided. In this case it was not and is even contradicted by the organisation (with the name incorrectly provided) which supposedly supported this viewpoint. Ozdaren (talk) 07:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I reviewed this; what you dispute was clearly backed by sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps you could read them? There are no claims of mistreatment made in the articles used as sources. The word is not used at all. The illegal immigrants are not mistreated by detention centre staff/guards. Although the idea of locking up people for an indeterminate period of time may be morally repugnant they are not 'mistreated' during that time. Ozdaren (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Brick wall
This article is POV with one of its main assertions not backed up by the sources provided. Despite repeated and appropriately annotated attempts to remove this POV editors Brian McNeil and Pi zero have resisted any attempts to correct this misinformation. It is a shame that wikinews is neither factual nor accurate in this matter and has been used as a forum to state a POV. The fact that this has been allowed to remain shows a low point in the integrity of this wiki. This article has now been archived so no changes can be made. It was archived by the very person who resisted the correction of this factual error. Ozdaren (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia. If your first, presumptuous, edit here hadn't been to delete a welcome template, you wouldn't be assuming rules you know from Wikipedia apply in any way, shape, or form. Try familiarising yourself with real policies, not those you seem to imagine. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've now moved the debate from the inadequacies of the article to a personal attack on me? Shame on you. The only presumptuous part of this equation seems to be your attitude. I'm not impressed by your bully boy tactics. Ozdaren (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop it and get yourself up to speed on policy fast; you, above, accused me of not reading sources when I reviewed this. If you knew how serious an allegation was, and noted I let it slide, you'd not be reacting in this manner to criticism against yourself. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony is dripping from that comment, Ozdaren. You are the one with the unhelpful, combative attitude. Perhaps you'd get on better if you stopped yelling at editors and started talking with them - unless, of course, you're trying to goad. The very heading I'm editing, and attempt at shock tactics it contains, suggest the latter. Consider this a warning that WN is not a theatre of war. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally disagree with you Blood Red Sandman. You are making accusations that I am yelling at other editors and I have a lack of knowledge of wikinews policies. I made a good faith edit to a news story as the sources provided did not back up the article's claim of mistreatment (although I do consider Gryllida's comments below to be helpful). Editor Brian McNeil has the tools to revert any edits he does not agree with. It is he who started to fan an edit/comment war. Comments such that I am presumptuous, unfamiliar with w/n policies (to the point of imagining things) and now combative and unhelpful certainly do nothing to calm this episode. Ozdaren (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "You are making accusations that I am yelling at other editors and I have a lack of knowledge of wikinews[sic] policies." Yes, I am. Well spotted. Now, I suggest you engage with users trying to discuss this instead of comments like the one initiating this section, which can only inflame. I also note you trying to drag me into the dispute itself. Don't even bother. I'm here to make sure this doesn't become disruptive; note, I have not simply blocked you because it is apparent to me you do have something to contribute, and I would very much like to see you spend less time yelling at editors because they disagree with you and more time spent productively discussing your dispute. I say again, though, inflammatory edits like this can only damage your case. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Mistreatment" is defined in a broad sense of "the practice of treating (someone or something) badly", which this article is about. I think that using this word to summarise the concern is ok - it doesn't always imply abuse or severity of the conditions. If you want to rephrase it to be more clear than it currently is, you're welcome to edit the story when it's not archived, and add something you find more appropriate yourself - Wininews is a wiki that anyone can edit; if others find your change not appropriate, then a discussion commonly takes place here. If you are sure that you want to change the phrasing after the story has been archived, please make up a replacement phrase you would like to see there. If it proves the current one be misleading then we will add a correction. Thank you. --Gryllida 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I attempted to edit it before it was archived. My original edit was the next day after the article appeared. This was repeatedly reverted by other editors. When I persisted in trying to improve the NPOV the article was quickly archived. Ozdaren (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "When I persisted" -> When I attempted to edit war when I should have been discussing it nicely. That said, you make it sound like you did engage in a one-man edit war; where this true, you'd be blocked. In fact, twice is scarcely 'repeatedly' - a mere one repeat. Early archive is activated in exactly these circumstances - somebody, instead of discussing, stubbornly insists on direct action. Hey presto, article is locked to prevent disruption. Now that you can't simply throw yourself at it, please try working with editors. Reason out your concerns, carefuly, and challenge those who oppose you to reason out their concerns the same way. Consider it from their perspective, as they will from yours, and then see where that takes you.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, a number of Administrators monitor WN:TOARCHIVE list, so the archival just happens in a timely fashion and has nothing to do with your actions. Sorry if that was frustrating this time, it's just routine operation done to each article regardless of its edit history. Gryllida 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I archived it. It was due, and above demonstrates appropriateness. I would respond further, but left hand not working well. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Like I can see, we're still discussing this. As such, I assume you actually want to change the phrasing after archival. What do you want the new phrasing to be? Gryllida 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the article history; "Professor Newman agreed with the Australian Human Rights Commission's findings that there were high rates of self-harm and suicidal tendencies in detainees from Sydney's Villawood detention centre." is what the last paragraph is about; removing it is not what I would recommend. However if you find a rephrasing necessary, feel free to suggest what you want, and we will consider it. Cheers, Gryllida 11:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ozdaren has been promoting substantive change to the article. Since it is far more than 24 hours after publication, the only remedy available for substantive problems is a correction notice.


 * Ozdaren has been apprised of this policy before, as well as directed to read the policy and provided with wikilinks to the relevant pages. Xe appears to have ignored the information and not followed the wikilinks.  At what point can we classify xem as a troll?  As for edit-warring, the article was early-archived just after Ozdaren explicitly declared intent to commit the same policy-violating edit again; the point of early archiving is that we put more importance on the integrity of articles than we do on giving disruptive editors enough rope to hang themselves.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone add the Howdy template to xyr user talk again. Then, ask to declare any CoI. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really care of the manner in which we started with the correction. Suppose they edit the article instead of discussing and having an administrator put correction? I can't care less until we discuss this and actually have the correction added. Once this is done, we can go and link them to whatever they did wrong. Gryllida 22:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Correction? No correction is merited whatsoever. You, yourself, highlighted above the use of "mistreatment" is apt. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on what rephrasing we'd be expecting here after seeing this quote, really. Probably none indeed. Smile.png Gryllida 01:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I had read the comments posted here last night my time and was appreciative of the neutral (and possibly helpful tone) of the points made (particularly by Gryllida). All I see now is a refanning of this contentious issue. I am not a troll, I have read your policies, I was genuinely concerned the article was inaccurate. Gryllida had provided an alternative view point to my own and took the time to explain this. I have taken no action since then. I am however very disappointed by the overbearing actions of a number of editors with higher powers. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Ozdaren (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy we discussed this in a balanced manner and were able to verify the last paragraph. I bring my apologies for not stepping in earlier before the article was archived. If you want to make an edit to a protected article in the future, you may use the editprotected and we should promptly respond to the suggestion, discuss it and come to an agreement. Keep up the good work! Gryllida 00:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's good work (In hindsight I'd probably adopt a bit of my own advice). Thanks for your positive interaction. Ozdaren (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

WOW... this feedback is an interesting introducton to Wikinews! This is the first time I have uploaded anything to the site, my apologies if I sourced it incorrectly. The last paragraph was certainly not a POV, and I just found the article where I got that information - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/26/3227447.htm. Looking forward to (hopefully) writing more articles. Thanks, Caitlin Crm644 (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My concern was that labeling it 'mistreatment' (a word that doesn't appear in the source articles) implies they are in a way being abused. Countries like Malaysia which physically punishes refugees/asylum seekers does 'mistreat' them (Caning etc). It seemed to me to be too strong a word for their incarceration in Australia (they do have the option of returning to their point of origin). My personal opinion is that locking people up is not the best course of action for many reasons. Ozdaren (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to bring apologies for all the "comments" that took place during the conversation - they are only intended to express frustration about that the edits were attempted too late and directly, instead of a question here. It's not something I would stress, since edit summary is in no way equal to a comment on talk page, and reverts like that were not something I would expect each new contributor to cope with competently. These comments were in no way intended to be discouraging or personal - we would be better off to go just by rereading them and getting ready to hop on to talk page instead of article when needed in the future. Smile.png Gryllida 03:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which, neatly, brings us back to the original point, and a lack of local knowledge. Wikinews articles are reviewed and published ; this is not Wikipedia. Jump in at a word that disturbs you, and zap a whole paragraph from a published article? You're simply going to be reverted by the majority of the community. has done good work with this article – I'd just add, you really should've listed the ABC story in sources. I found it when checking for plagiarism, but you'd not committed that cardinal sin. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Brian McNeil, thanks for pointing it out that the original question has an answer - so we went and searched it. Gryllida 10:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)