Talk:Silencing Dissent

Insert non-formatted text here

Over the past many decades NZ’ers have worked and even died along side their OZ’y cousins throughout good times and bad.

In world conflicts this has happened and still does today. Some 500,000 Kiwis now call OZ home. They have helped build its economy during the boom times alongside ordinary Australians, hell OZ even steals the odd one now and then like Russel Crowe.

Are we like brothers?. Well well when it suits the answer is YES!!. But in times of trouble are we Brothers?, the answer is yes.. we send Kiwi firefighters here even donations.

But is this repaid in kind?. The answer is NO!. I would bet that the average OZy does not know that any Kiwi that arrived after Feb 2001 cannot access unemployment assistance should they through no fault of their own, lose their job. Answer… Kiwi go home. Go home and get help from your own Government cause we don’t need you right now.

Closer economic ties worth 80 billion and a domestic air agreement making it easier for Qantas to make money flying Kiwis here, but no benefit.

The reason is due to John Howard changing the immigration laws to make all Kiwis treated the same as the rest of the world. From Zimbabwe to China and now NZ all must meet the tough permanent visa laws. Which means even if you are in full time employment, own property and even have your children in School here for many years. If you cannot meet the criteria in the skilled category and be under 45 years old or be able to buy a substantial business in Australia, you cannot really call it home.. not now not ever.

Kiwi go home. Will Mr Ruddd right the wrong of the Howard Government?. Will Turnbull if he was to regain Government?. Who knows because if you ask them, neither will respond.

Australians living in NZ can after residing for a period of two years get government assistance without the need for a special visa, just an Australian passport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.36.62 (talk) 08:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

An author is insisting that this article "read's like an advertisement. And asserts opinion as if it is true. ie, POV" and has removed a large amount of sourced material.

The reality is that the article clearly expresses author's opinions saying "Hamilton and Maddison argue..." and "Maddison states..." using reliable sources. There is no advertisement here, as nothing here promotes sales of the book. I'm restoring removed material. Feel free to add in any published critique of the book you might have. Johnfos (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Three points:

• The paragraph in question is a copy and paste (ie, copy-right violation) from [1]
• The same writer who wrote in the same article: this book offers succour to "Howard haters" - if we can include the above POV copy and paste why not include the other? Have amended accordingly.
• The above mentioned changes still don't address the fact that the paragraph in question still reads as an assertion of the book's POV as fact. It is not fact, it is a POV.--Merbabu (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I think what is needed now is a good copyedit, and I've added a tag at the top of the page which may attract the attention of an experienced copyeditor. Johnfos (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I consider myself an experience copyeditor, particularly in spotting bias. But you reverted my efforts. But, I take your call for a copy edit to be an admission of the problems with your preferred version that I've outlined above. --Merbabu (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I'm watchlisting this article. Have been gathering references on press freedom under Howard for a while. Ottre 14:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

references or opinion? --Merbabu (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. My ctrl+v is broken somehow. You prob want to check how long Tom Switzer has been with the IPA, also check that "The Wry Side" is actually part of The Australian's media review section. Ottre 14:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not put in the Tom Switzer citation. As it (and a few others) weren't actually citing anything in the article I removed them. The copy and pasted quotations come from Allington alone. --Merbabu (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article should be deleted if it has existed for a year or more and still relies upon a single reliable source. I don't see any obvious connections being made to Hamilton, and you apparently agree with this, so no reason to keep it as a POV stub. Ottre 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My reason for removal of four the citations was that they weren't used for the material presented in this article. Ie, the article is essentially two passages copied from 1 (cited) reviewer. I'm not saying necessarily that these four references couldn't be used to develop the article further.

Article quality (or otherwise) is irrelevant to any question of deletion. Rather the justification for an article is the notability of its subject. There are a number of articles on WP about books critical of the Howard Govt. They are by the same editor, and their common problem is that the books' opinions are presented as facts, rather than presented as a point of view. I've been working my way through them. --Merbabu (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, generally we do delete poorly written articles on semi-notable subjects. 4-5 people writing a number of articles about a book so broadly critical of a government doesn't say much about its reception, especially if there's only one good review found so far.

How many of the other articles are on books edited by Hamilton? Ottre 16:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)