This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Multifunction Polis was copied or moved into Garden Island (South Australia) with this edit on 00:46, 5 February 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There are many alternative spellings for the Multifunction Polis. There is 'Multi-Function Polis' (with & without the hyphen, sometimes with 2 hyphens), 'Multifunctional Polis' is often used, 'MFP Adelaide', among many others. There are references using all these alternatives. Redirects have been set up for the alternate spellings. Lester 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Some Wikipedians have been adding and removing a coatrack tag to this article. Can we have a discussion here?
I don't believe this article needs a coatrack tag. It is quite true that objections were raised to the MFP on racial, as I see it racist, grounds. To say so does not make this article a coatrack. I don't believe the article promotes racism or says the criticisms were justified. Perhaps the tone of the article could be improved by more discussion of the economic grounds for its cancellation, but that does not invalidate a discussion of facts.
Andrew Peacock's opposition was particularly cynical. He quite clearly said, during an election campaign, that if he elected he would cancel the MFP, because it would "establish an enclave" that would be "socially divisive". So much for economics!
As a community, in general and in Wikipedia, I think we should shine a light on unfounded racism rather than censor it or ignore it.
The MFP *failed* because it was a white elephant, overambitious, and not viable once the Japanese economy hit a recession in the 1990s, and not because of the racist criticism. The article should say so. But criticism there was, and the article should say that too.
Please, what's a BLP?
Paul Foxworthy ( talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As a resident of Adelaide at the time this project was in place, I find certain comments attributed to Denis Gastin rather limited.
The article makes no mention of the extensive soil contamination or other issues that contributed greatly to project delays. Resistance to the proposal was not exclusively on concerns about an enclave, but to the millions spent on salaries for several years while no work commenced on the proposed site at all.
In fact, the project was near its demise before any effort began on soil reclamation.
Unfortunately, I have no clippings from the Adelaide Advertiser which discussed this matter, nor do I retain the Geography lecture noties from the day that the MFP media team came to discuss the environmental benefits.
I believe that the Multifunction Polis article woudl benefit from appropriate referenced information about these matters.
-- Hermride ( talk) 11:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
144.136.192.70 ( talk) 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This section needs to be improved. It reads like a real estate ad at the moment. I presume the water for toilets and garden is recycled, as all urban areas have reticulated water for these uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.253 ( talk) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Multifunction Polis was copied or moved into Garden Island (South Australia) with this edit on 00:46, 5 February 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
There are many alternative spellings for the Multifunction Polis. There is 'Multi-Function Polis' (with & without the hyphen, sometimes with 2 hyphens), 'Multifunctional Polis' is often used, 'MFP Adelaide', among many others. There are references using all these alternatives. Redirects have been set up for the alternate spellings. Lester 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Some Wikipedians have been adding and removing a coatrack tag to this article. Can we have a discussion here?
I don't believe this article needs a coatrack tag. It is quite true that objections were raised to the MFP on racial, as I see it racist, grounds. To say so does not make this article a coatrack. I don't believe the article promotes racism or says the criticisms were justified. Perhaps the tone of the article could be improved by more discussion of the economic grounds for its cancellation, but that does not invalidate a discussion of facts.
Andrew Peacock's opposition was particularly cynical. He quite clearly said, during an election campaign, that if he elected he would cancel the MFP, because it would "establish an enclave" that would be "socially divisive". So much for economics!
As a community, in general and in Wikipedia, I think we should shine a light on unfounded racism rather than censor it or ignore it.
The MFP *failed* because it was a white elephant, overambitious, and not viable once the Japanese economy hit a recession in the 1990s, and not because of the racist criticism. The article should say so. But criticism there was, and the article should say that too.
Please, what's a BLP?
Paul Foxworthy ( talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As a resident of Adelaide at the time this project was in place, I find certain comments attributed to Denis Gastin rather limited.
The article makes no mention of the extensive soil contamination or other issues that contributed greatly to project delays. Resistance to the proposal was not exclusively on concerns about an enclave, but to the millions spent on salaries for several years while no work commenced on the proposed site at all.
In fact, the project was near its demise before any effort began on soil reclamation.
Unfortunately, I have no clippings from the Adelaide Advertiser which discussed this matter, nor do I retain the Geography lecture noties from the day that the MFP media team came to discuss the environmental benefits.
I believe that the Multifunction Polis article woudl benefit from appropriate referenced information about these matters.
-- Hermride ( talk) 11:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
144.136.192.70 ( talk) 00:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
This section needs to be improved. It reads like a real estate ad at the moment. I presume the water for toilets and garden is recycled, as all urban areas have reticulated water for these uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.52.253 ( talk) 11:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)