Talk:Sydney residents protest anti-terror laws

Original reporting

this is an eye-witness report, i collected audio and photographic material at the demonstration - unsigned comment by User:59.167.34.132

Expert opinion

I've emailed some Sydney academics to seek their opinion on the protest and quotes. - Borofkin 06:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have received the following comment from Dr Andrew Lynch, Project Director of the Terrorism and Law project at the Gilbert & Tobin Centre of Public Law, University of New South Wales. The comment is in response to the quote in the article from Lee Rhiannon.

"I think Rhiannon has a point about many of the provisions. It is difficult to see how many of them will enhance our security. For example, the bans on free speech will only drive inciting and hateful messages under ground which must make the job of security forces harder in identifying real threats. The restrictions on family members knowing about the detention of their children is not conceivably going to improve our safety. There is a lot to be said for the view that depriving people of their liberty on the basis only of 'reasonable suspicion' might well fuel feelings of alienation amongst some groups which could be harnessed by extremists." - Dr Andrew Lynch

Neutrality

We need to include something about the governments position - i.e. why does the government think that the anti-terror laws are a good thing? - Borofkin 06:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some of the governments claims from a press release. Whaddaya think? - Borofkin 06:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it.

A person commits an offence if the person does any act in 
preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life

That isn't the proposed law, it's the current law. http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/686/0/PA001860.htm

Why then do we need urgent action to extend the law?

Regards, BenAveling 09:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Peculiar edit of direct quote

I'm very interested in this edit. Why has the direct quote changed? How was the quote recorded? i.e. was it tape recorded, or did you make notes, or did you put it into Wikinews from memory? - Borofkin 06:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I recorded it with an flash disk/mp3 player, but the device is very simple and it is not easy to transcribe from because of difficulities navigating through the recording. Also, I am unable to play the files on my computer as I do not have the software for the proprietary format used in the voice recording files. The quote was initially incomplete and I was unable to get back to that position quickly to finish it--CitizenBruce 09:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No worries, just thought I'd ask. Great work on this article... I know how much work goes into original reporting. - Borofkin 22:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Great breaking news story

Publishing now. Neutralizer 14:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

sorry; didn't realize it was already published. Neutralizer 14:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

front page feature box

The front page feature box says that demonstration occurred on Tuesday. This is incorrect. The demonstration was Wednesday November 2, Sydney time --CitizenBruce 00:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. - Borofkin 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Need a category?

I'm seeing a lot of related stories on the terror bill. I'd like to see them linked together in some way.

I'm new to wikinews. Can we create a new category, or is there some other way to achieve the same end?

Regards, BenAveling 06:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The easiest solution would be to add a "Related stories" section to the connected articles and then listing the related articles. Specialized categories such as "Australian anti-terror legislation" are generally frowned upon as being to specialized. Such categories also have a habit of being accused of being POV -- though I'm not sure, personally, if a category is POV simply because the stories grouped by it exhibit a certain POV. Similar categories have recently been proposed for deletion and were in fact deleted.

Practice seems to indicate that "top level" categories are used most often where specialized categories often are used a few times and then forgotten. One editor has suggested that specialized categories such as "Spoonistan lottery scandal" (a fictional example) are not news categories, but rather, are encylopedia categories. Generally, I tend to agree.

As you may have noticed, categories are often used to create DPL "info boxes". I notice this story has both the category "Australia" and "Politics and conflicts". If one were to create a DPL info box combining these two categories, one would likely be presented with a group of stories that included the anti-terror stories. This would require, of course, that all appropriate stories are categorized using those particular cats. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

One could argue that a category such as "Australian 2005 anti-terror legislation" would be similar to categories such as Category:2005-07-07 London bombings, in that they both collate articles related to a single event: in the first case the passing of a particular piece of legislation, and in the second case a bombing. - Borofkin 06:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You're quite right, of course. One could easily argue for the deletion of the London bombing category based on the arguments used for other recent category deletions. I won't speculate on the support for or opposition to an Austrialian anti-terror category. I suspect there would be strong opposition to deleting the London bombing category. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You say that "specialized categories often are used a few times and then forgotten." That sounds true. But is it bad? Especially if specialised categories are sub-types of general categories. Regards, BenAveling 06:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)