Talk:ASIO settle out of court, wrongful detention case

delayed report

If the new laws were brought in and it was an issue of preventative detention no probably not, no,he said

   If it's an issue of an ASIO warrant, under section 34d of the ASIO Act, no, you wouldn't and the Government's got to be scrutinised for all of its actions and if they make a mistake they should be held accountable, he said. 

appears to be a delayed report from the previous

 the Government's got to be scrutinised for all of its actions and if they make a mistake they should be held accountable, he said.

Maybe the news outlets had to seek legal advice or they are stringing the new out. But i am unsure if these comment are from the same interview --Whywhywhy 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

what more to be published?

iv been looking at other articles to see what standards need to be meet to be published and this one goes beyond half the others in the australia section. Could you please make some suggestions. Also i am not sure how to handdle the see also added not by me but it does look untidy --Whywhywhy 01:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There are no hard-and-fast rules. Unless someone has raised a specific conern with the article that is yet to be addressed, you should publish if you think it is ready. If someone disagrees they will unpublish. Good work on this article, by the way. - Borofkin 01:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, when I say there are no hard-and-fast rules, I am assuming that in your opinion the article meets the standards laid down in Wikinews:Writing_an_article, especially neutral point of view. - Borofkin 01:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Excessive use of quotes

I feel this article is missing a ton of information and is instead held up by the numerous, unformatted quotes in the article. Therefore, I have pulled it from publish in order for it to be developed for a while in order for these items to be addressed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"I feel this article is missing a ton of information" - can you be more specific? "unformatted quotes in the article." - can you elaborate on where the problem lies with the quoting? The article is about half description and half quotes, and all blocks of quotes are preceeded by a sentence or two providing context. I'm not saying that the article is comprehensive, but I don't see why it should be sent back to Develop. - Borofkin 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all - What is ASIO? What do they do? What are some responses from some of the organizers? There is speculation of the bill's actions on the article - that is opinion. The quotes are dryly put in the article - are not maching up with any paragraphs explaining items. Formatting is a huge issue with this one, as well. Develop more. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've broken up all the issues below so they can be discussed separately. Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this article... I'm not trying to make things hard for you - I genuinely don't understand some of the issues you have raised. - Borofkin 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, first of all - What is ASIO? What do they do

This information has now been added to the article. - Borofkin 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What are some responses from some of the organizers?

Errrm... organisers of what? - Borofkin 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Erm... what are they called? Heads of the organization? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh, so you mean what is the response of ASIO and the Federal government to the out-of-court settlement? I can try and find something, but I'd be suprised if there was any. Because details of the settlement are secret, I suspect that both organisations are saying little. - Borofkin 04:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the appropriate thing to do in this case is tag it as NPOV, isn't it? I think that an NPOV tag is much clearer than moving it back to develop, even with comments on the talk page. - Borofkin 04:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Again, I don't see the point in tagging articles in publish. If they have issues they need to work out, they should be in develop stage. Publish should be as finalized as most articles get, requiring only minor edits. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I searched all the online articles in relation to this case and ASIO has not made any public comment in any of them

--Whywhywhy 06:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

There is speculation of the bill's actions on the article - that is opinion

All opinions in the article are attributed to people, except perhaps for the last sentence, which should probably be deleted. - Borofkin 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC) The last line is a netural point i saw and not opinionated i dont see it as making anyone look good or bad. Seeing the article is directly related to me the writter i thought it was resonable to make the point. But i dont mind if its in their or not.

All the rest of the speculations are quoted and were reported by the australian broadcasting corporation which are responsable to the government as a government funded group to follow strict bipartisan reporting guidelines and my article containt more detail then thier articles --Whywhywhy 06:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The quotes are dryly put in the article - are not maching up with any paragraphs explaining items

There are three blocks of quotes, and each one has a preceeding sentence which provides context. Do you think that these should be expanded, or something? - Borofkin 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Very much so. It would be nice to form the quotes into paragraphs with the context and details also in the same paragraph. It makes for a much more organized, easier-to-follow article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

If i had of added to much context to the quotes i would have been considered to be adding to speculating myself which i have already been accused of. --Whywhywhy 06:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Formatting is a huge issue with this one, as well

My thoughts here are the same as for Makybe Diva wins the Melbourne Cup: If you think this is the case then in my opinion you should use the "cleanup" tag rather than the "develop" tag. However, I don't think the problems you have identified are particularly obvious, and I think that in the time you spend tagging and explaining, you could probably have fixed the issue yourself. It seems much more efficient than trying to explain it all to someone else, you will then probably only see some of the problems that you see. - Borofkin 03:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Cleanup" is for developing articles requiring MUCH attention. Having an article published and tagged with "cleanup" doesn't make any sense at all. All articles that require major edits (aside from minor spelling, punctuation, grammar errors) should be placed in developing stage. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Publish now

I think the article is ready and consensus is for publishing, as --Whywhywhy did. I support it. Neutralizer 14:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)