Talk:Compensation funding agreement reached for Australian asbestos victims

Please rewrite this without any opinion stated. Quotes of bias are OK, but commenting in a news article is against the NPOV policy here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the article is fit to be published and is not against the NPOV policy. thus i vote for it published with out NPOV --Whywhywhy 08:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I just cant see the reason for POW-tagging this article. Do you dislike the last part? "This move has been speculated as being a way for the company to avoid paying the fund the entitled amount." What I see its a fact that speculations about it is going on. Based on the sources below it is a summary. Every article can be inproved, but your hardhanded tagging is not necesary in this case. "Can the extra money be recovered, or is the company beyond the reach of NSW law now that it is domiciled in Amsterdam?" "Meanwhile the Commission heard Monday that James Hardie organised its affairs last year so that it would not have to provide more funds to the trust it set up in February 2001 to handle asbestos compensation even if the trust established a legal claim, chief executive Peter Macdonald agreed under cross-examination yesterday."[1]

I republish International 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• You will not republish this until it is fixed. Whywhywhy was briefed on the reasonings by both I and also concerns from other users in the IRC chat room. USERS WILL NOT VOTE ON WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T NPOV. NPOV WILL NOT BE BYPASSED BECAUSE OF A VOTE. I think it is pretty obvious in this case where the biased statements lie, so therefore I won't waste my time trying to hold your hands through it. I've done that too many times. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Additionally, you may find the biased statements in areas that are not backed by people's claims, etc. We are not here to point to the sources, we are here to tell the whole story. If you only want to submit small summaries and point people to a link, please contribute to the Current events section of Wikipedia instead. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

i would hardly call it a brief. You didnt break down any of your concerns. You just stated that the article was NPOV and needed a rewrite and i asked repeatedly for a breakdown. Some input from other members happen but it hardly helped the article.I am doing my best but Unfortunatly i dont see many other people publish articles so I try fill the gap best i can--Whywhywhy 04:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Also i would like to remind you MrM "Wikimedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to the neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities"--Whywhywhy 06:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Wikinews will never fall to biased articles. Not as long as I'm here, and that's a promise. --MrMiscellanious(talk) (contribs) 23:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• well if thats the case your welcome to try editing before sending back to develope.--Whywhywhy 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Have I understand things right, is this corect, Whywhywhy:

"Under cross-examination, in front of the special Commission of inquiry in Sydney 2004, CEO Peter Macdonald said Hardie organised its affairs last year so that it would not have to provide more funds to the trust it set up in February 2001 to handle asbestos compensation even if the trust established a legal claim."

International 09:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

maybe i should replace it with that quote what do you think?--Whywhywhy 10:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The title

Is it just me or does the title make no sense? - Apollyon 15:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

it's not just you Doldrums 16:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

what about " Corporate watchdog is closing in on asbestos funding scandal" International 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

or "Corporate watchdog focus on directors in Australian asbestos funding scandal"International 18:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

New one "Corporate watchdog focus on directors in Australian asbestos funding scandal after victim conpensation deal signed" International 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

major rewrite

Whywhywhy, is it acceptabe for you? Else just change back and maybe use part of it. The part that angerd mrm can be used imo because it come in another consistency, do as you will.International 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just because it came from somewhere else doesn't mean it's acceptable to Wikinews standards. MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• I still think it is corresponding with the "truth" and history of this story.

"In December 2001, the company shareholders unanimously voted to restructure and relocate the company in the Netherlands as a parent company. This move has been speculated as being a way for the company to avoid paying the fund the entitled amount."

And this is my opinion as a editor, nothing else, no voting, and you cant obviously dont accept that there is other opinion than yours here. Well, its not a hot topic anymore. International 23:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• You never stated who speculated the move was to "cover up" the funds. That makes it a biased statement. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

Thumbs up. Good job, NPOV no longer needed. Move to publish when you feel fit, but this statement is still confusing to me: "The Australian corporate watchdog ASIC(Australian Securities and Investments Commission) is now gaining grounds on James Hardie Industries corporate members." --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've not followed this, so can't comment on MrM's earlier concerns. However, I do agree this "gaining grounds" statement doesn't parse well. Are they perhaps "considering bringing cases against" these people?

I also think it needs a clearer title, more people will be prompted to read it if it mentions the asbestos compensation. Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Australian asbestos victims get conpensation- Corporate watchdog focus on directors dealing " Is it good or is it good? International 00:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Victims are still not assured of compensation... maybe, Trust funding set for Australian asbestos victims... I'd leave the directors out (too much information). -68.232.153.54 00:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

theirs is hardly to much information. thanks for the rewrite. I liked my title better but hey this will do. thanks again--Whywhywhy 03:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the Jackson inquiry?

oh, sorry I get it: NSW Special Commissioner David Jackson QC -68.232.153.54 00:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)