Talk:Australian refugee contractor accused of breaching its duty of care

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I doubt if the child were white, he'd be referred as a 'toddler'. Racism is just one consequence of our hierarchy-based societies.

To the contributor above; I hope you will stay on Wikinews and contribute more. I think you have clarity of thought. Neutralizer 14:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually in Australia if the child was white he would be referred to as a toddler. A child under the age of three qualifies as a toodler and the term is normally used in Australia as such - Cartman02au 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is certainly the case. I didn't really understand the anon's comment. Does "toddler" mean something negative elsewhere in the world? - Borofkin 00:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Privatisation of human services Sucks[edit]

Really pisses me off. US prison system is one example. Neutralizer 14:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Point 1: Headline is POV and misdirected.

Headline: "Privatisation of Australia's refugee program under fire following death of African toddler"

Lede: "A two-and-a-half year old child, Richard Niyonsaba, died less than 24 hours after arriving in Australia."

Most of the article is an account of the child's death. There is not really much meat in the criticism department. Just look at the SMH source as contrast:

Headline: "Critics take aim at refugee service centre"

Lede: "AS ONE of the contractors recently given the job of resettling refugees, the Australian Centre for Languages has borne heavy criticism."

In fact, Ntiranyi doesn't even bear mention in that article! The end result is the wiki-authour(s) is/are using the headline as a way of criticising privatisation without providing any actual criticism, when instead the article is about the child's death. It's a sucker-punch.

Point 2: It is possible to be critical of the contractor ACL without being critical of privatisation. Which is it here? The only specific opinion is towards ACL. Again, the authour(s) are using the headline to interject their own opinion. Reread that SMH intro "AS ONE of the contractors". ACL is only one of the contractors. Of course the authour(s) have little interest in this; capitalism is bad, always.

Point 3: Anonymous organisations: "Orgnaisation's which formerly provided care to refugees have strongly criticised ACL saying that they can not provide the level of care that these people require." This in fact would make a better intro! It's more congruent with the actual headline.

Point 4: No counter-criticism or response from ACL. This from the SMH:

The managing director of ACL, Helen Zimmerman:"ACL takes all the claims made against it very seriously and with due respect," she said. "I have commissioned Mr Richard Fiora, partner from Sydney law firm Banki Haddock Fiora, to independently review the claims and make suggestions where ACL may improve its systems.
"In the meantime ACL, with its partner Mission Australia, has already held a number of meetings with volunteers in Newcastle who wish to work with us. A training session will take place on January 21."
There was no intention of interjecting my POV into the article. If you thought that was the case you should have changed the title. You might be interested to have a look at the critisim surrounding the government after more information has been released - Cartman02au 00:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marked as develop/editing[edit]

I have marked the article as developing and under going a major edit following the fresh claims about ACL. I have also changed the title, hopefully it is clearer and has no POV issues - Cartman02au 00:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"It's" is a contraction for "it is". Perhaps it should be "its"... --Chiacomo (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no problem with the current article title, but remember that the title should reflect the content of the article. If the title is "Australian refugee contractor accused of breaching it's duty of care", then the first paragraph of the article should state what the accusation was, and the overall focus of the article should be the accusation. If the focus of the article is the death of the child, then the title should be something like "Refugee child dies 18 hours after arriving in Australia". - Borofkin 00:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is trying to explain both the situation with the child's death and the situation of ACL refusing/failing to provide food for three women in Newcastle. I think the article needs a tidy up now though - Cartman02au 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has become a wikipedia entry now. There is no need for subsections; that is what paragraphs are for. I suppose my POV concerns are largely met, sigh...


I was the person who originally leaked this story to the media, and am happy to clear up any matters of fact regarding the story. In fact there is a lot more background information here that has not been reported.Sumthingweird 00:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would love it if you could share some information with us - Cartman02au 09:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


{{editprotected}} "familys" => "family's" Van der Hoorn (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done --Anonymous101talk 08:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]