This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Mattinbgn: I don't see a notability problem. The return of failed asylum seekers is in itself probably run-of-the mill. But this case has been very different because of the massive support from the people of Bioela to keep them in Australia. They've been in the news for a couple of years at least, they've been talked about on current affairs shows on TV, there have been petitions with thousands of signatures, and now it seems they've stopped a plane in its flight, which is going to generate more headlines. I agree the title isn't great but what would be better? Maybe Biloela campaign for asylum seekers as that at least indicate why it is not run-of-the-mill? Dunno. Kerry ( talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add a map to the article to show how far detention is from "home", but didn't find a suitable background that includes Christmas Island, and this one loses the dot and half the words. -- Scott Davis Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I am left with a few key questions by this article (and the answers don't seem to be in the present references). If anyone knows how to find and source answers, I think it would help this article. BLP may be an issue though.
-- Scott Davis Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS:NAME says we should use full names and previous names in the first sentence, then just surnames. I'm not familiar with Tamil customs to work out whether we have perpetuated a spelling error, nor whether we are missing a former name. Also we should use surnames in the rest of the article unless ambiguity requires otherwise. At the moment, we appear to be using a shortened form of the first name for the lady, and the full first name for the gentleman, despite many of the references using a short form for his name too. I also note that the second name for her is presently "Nadesalingham" which is his first name with an extra 'h'. I suspect this may be a spelling or transliteration error, but am reluctant to change it as there appear to be references with both spellings, so I don't know which are wrong. Does anyone know which versions are right? I'm pretty sure there are references to support any reasonable solution, so we need to be deliberate in choosing the right one. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", "Miss", "Mx" (this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr.", "Prof.", "Rev.", etc.), or may be referred to by a pronoun.
Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name.
More background material can be found here including their initial detention on Christmas Island, the nature of their claims for permanent residency and the deemed reasons for refusal. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of general poling about attitudes towards refugees, in a source that does not reference the Murugappan family at at all, is irrelevant here - it's an attempt to make completely unsourced claims about attitudes towards the Murugappan family through synthesis. The drastically different public response in certain quarters to the Murugappan family to refugees in general (including the entire Labor Party) is part of why they're notable in the first place. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Drovers Wife, I have looked at
synthesis and believe you are overreaching. In particular I suggest you review
Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and in particular:
Drovers Wife, please explain how you believe the two sections on Polling you have reverted in the Summary and Reactions section conflict with synthesis, particularly addressing the two items above. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
No response received so will revert the deletion of the Refugee Polling edits. Note that the main reason I included these edits is NPOV. Currently the article includes support from some residents of Biloela as well as asylum-seeker advocates, however it makes no mention of the large number of Australians who believe asylum-seekers who are not eligible to stay in Australia should be deported, which includes the Murugappan family. Adding the Refugee Polling information and references provides this balance Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
There are two disputes being discussed in Refugee Polling so to makes this clear I have created this new section and will transfer the discussion Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I think remove the entire paragraph, the ABC article cited treats both Kingsley and Jeans with similar weight, but I think neither is particularly relevant to the article. One is a generalised statement by an academic not specifically about the family, whilst the other is a lawyer giving an opinion without having any particular insight into this case beyond a personal interest and understanding of the law. Either keep both or ditch both, I say ditch ‘em. Cavalryman ( talk) 05:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC).
Reading the above their are a number of comments on Jean Simmons being a "random lawyer". The following details are from his firm's website at
https://www.jeanslaw.com.au explaining his background and experience:
Given his background and level of experience I agree with Bran488 that his statement can be relied on, particularly as it is included in the ABC article. Happy to work on consensus here to reach appropriate agreed wording. However would not agree with a wholesale deletion Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This ABC Australian Story article says "The family is often referred to as the Murugappans, but actually goes by Nades’s full first name in accordance with cultural practice. Media scrutiny of the Nadesalingams’ plight has been intense..." - so I think that mention should be made of this, preferably with a mention in the lead, as I see that there is a redirect from that name. The article might also contain other info not already in the article - I haven't read either properly yet. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 11:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
(After edit conflict and before wwgb's first response...)
I have no idea which statements might be libellous, but I have not seen a Wikipedia policy that suggests we should avoid sources which contain potentially libellous statements, and why would there be, if we're not repeating such statements? We're not expected to interpret the law, only extract facts from reliable sources, and there is no doubt that the ABC is an RS. The mere fact that there are alternative ways of naming the family cannot be interpreted as risky in any way that I can see, and if there's a wp rule for excluding the Australian Story article as a source of basic facts, I'd like to know about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a more recent source rather than an older one, so long as it is reliable and correctly represents the facts. However this is just fyi, or fmi if there's something I didn't know that you can tell me - I'm really not interested in long discussions or edit-warring about relatively trivial matters. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Refer to [1]. It says "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." "It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." It has been mentioned that there might be potential libel against either the Sri Lankan Government or the Sri Lankan High Commission. Some of the commentary has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of substantiated or validated sources for some commentary. This is just in reference to the Australian Story article and not other articles by the ABC. ABC is under a general consensus to be reliable. I don't deny that. Though the ABC has had libel cases before. Bran488 ( talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
WWGB - it's not just my (and Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo's) opinion that the case is high-profile - it would not be on Wikipedia were it not, surely? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, the academic's quote is beyond the court findings. The commentary was either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases, therefore the terminology used to describe the quote is appropriate as a reference for the proceeding quotation by the academic as it contradicts the findings of the court and tribunal hearings and the corroborated evidence. It has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of secondary substantiated or validated sources for the commentary. Hence the term "allegedly" has been used due to the potential of libel as it is opinion based. Further corroboration has been provided to ascertain this. It is not part of the quotation. It is based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited with further citations. I'm of the thought that the article should remain neutral and not politically motivated. This has been discussed already. Bran488 ( talk) 08:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Bran488: has repeatedly inserted "alleged" into the text so that it reads {{
Damien Kingsbury, an academic specialising in international politics, said that even though the civil war had ended, Sri Lanka was allegedly still dangerous for some minorities, saying ...}}. This was
undone by @
WWGB:, reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary it's not part of the quotation. It's a neutral independent analysis of the statement based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited
, undone by
myself and & reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary that's not part of the quotation in any case. It's based upon the corroboration as had been cited and ascertained by the court findings. As has been discussed in the talk page
. The difficulty with this particular edit is that the referenced source is "Although the conflict has ended, Professor Kingsbury said the political situation was still dangerous for some minorities and people with links to the Tamil Tigers. He said people still "disappear" and were tortured." It is a clear statement of opinion by the Kingsbury and properly attributed to him. It is entirely inappropriate to tone down Kingsley's opinion to falsely attribute Kingsley as saying it was ""allegedly dangerous".
Whether a place is dangerous is a matter of opinion & it is entirely normal for people to have a different opinion. The appropriate manner to deal with such disagreement in accordance with WP:NPV is to identify and attribute the other point of view with reliable sources. -- Find bruce ( talk) 09:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
@ Mattinbgn: I don't see a notability problem. The return of failed asylum seekers is in itself probably run-of-the mill. But this case has been very different because of the massive support from the people of Bioela to keep them in Australia. They've been in the news for a couple of years at least, they've been talked about on current affairs shows on TV, there have been petitions with thousands of signatures, and now it seems they've stopped a plane in its flight, which is going to generate more headlines. I agree the title isn't great but what would be better? Maybe Biloela campaign for asylum seekers as that at least indicate why it is not run-of-the-mill? Dunno. Kerry ( talk) 07:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I was going to add a map to the article to show how far detention is from "home", but didn't find a suitable background that includes Christmas Island, and this one loses the dot and half the words. -- Scott Davis Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I am left with a few key questions by this article (and the answers don't seem to be in the present references). If anyone knows how to find and source answers, I think it would help this article. BLP may be an issue though.
-- Scott Davis Talk 04:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS:NAME says we should use full names and previous names in the first sentence, then just surnames. I'm not familiar with Tamil customs to work out whether we have perpetuated a spelling error, nor whether we are missing a former name. Also we should use surnames in the rest of the article unless ambiguity requires otherwise. At the moment, we appear to be using a shortened form of the first name for the lady, and the full first name for the gentleman, despite many of the references using a short form for his name too. I also note that the second name for her is presently "Nadesalingham" which is his first name with an extra 'h'. I suspect this may be a spelling or transliteration error, but am reluctant to change it as there appear to be references with both spellings, so I don't know which are wrong. Does anyone know which versions are right? I'm pretty sure there are references to support any reasonable solution, so we need to be deliberate in choosing the right one. -- Scott Davis Talk 13:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr.", "Mrs.", "Ms.", "Miss", "Mx" (this includes academic or professional prefixes like "Dr.", "Prof.", "Rev.", etc.), or may be referred to by a pronoun.
Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name.
More background material can be found here including their initial detention on Christmas Island, the nature of their claims for permanent residency and the deemed reasons for refusal. -- Mattinbgn ( talk) 05:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The inclusion of general poling about attitudes towards refugees, in a source that does not reference the Murugappan family at at all, is irrelevant here - it's an attempt to make completely unsourced claims about attitudes towards the Murugappan family through synthesis. The drastically different public response in certain quarters to the Murugappan family to refugees in general (including the entire Labor Party) is part of why they're notable in the first place. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 23:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Drovers Wife, I have looked at
synthesis and believe you are overreaching. In particular I suggest you review
Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not and in particular:
Drovers Wife, please explain how you believe the two sections on Polling you have reverted in the Summary and Reactions section conflict with synthesis, particularly addressing the two items above. Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
No response received so will revert the deletion of the Refugee Polling edits. Note that the main reason I included these edits is NPOV. Currently the article includes support from some residents of Biloela as well as asylum-seeker advocates, however it makes no mention of the large number of Australians who believe asylum-seekers who are not eligible to stay in Australia should be deported, which includes the Murugappan family. Adding the Refugee Polling information and references provides this balance Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
There are two disputes being discussed in Refugee Polling so to makes this clear I have created this new section and will transfer the discussion Ilenart626 ( talk) 10:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I think remove the entire paragraph, the ABC article cited treats both Kingsley and Jeans with similar weight, but I think neither is particularly relevant to the article. One is a generalised statement by an academic not specifically about the family, whilst the other is a lawyer giving an opinion without having any particular insight into this case beyond a personal interest and understanding of the law. Either keep both or ditch both, I say ditch ‘em. Cavalryman ( talk) 05:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC).
Reading the above their are a number of comments on Jean Simmons being a "random lawyer". The following details are from his firm's website at
https://www.jeanslaw.com.au explaining his background and experience:
Given his background and level of experience I agree with Bran488 that his statement can be relied on, particularly as it is included in the ABC article. Happy to work on consensus here to reach appropriate agreed wording. However would not agree with a wholesale deletion Ilenart626 ( talk) 11:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This ABC Australian Story article says "The family is often referred to as the Murugappans, but actually goes by Nades’s full first name in accordance with cultural practice. Media scrutiny of the Nadesalingams’ plight has been intense..." - so I think that mention should be made of this, preferably with a mention in the lead, as I see that there is a redirect from that name. The article might also contain other info not already in the article - I haven't read either properly yet. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 11:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
(After edit conflict and before wwgb's first response...)
I have no idea which statements might be libellous, but I have not seen a Wikipedia policy that suggests we should avoid sources which contain potentially libellous statements, and why would there be, if we're not repeating such statements? We're not expected to interpret the law, only extract facts from reliable sources, and there is no doubt that the ABC is an RS. The mere fact that there are alternative ways of naming the family cannot be interpreted as risky in any way that I can see, and if there's a wp rule for excluding the Australian Story article as a source of basic facts, I'd like to know about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with using a more recent source rather than an older one, so long as it is reliable and correctly represents the facts. However this is just fyi, or fmi if there's something I didn't know that you can tell me - I'm really not interested in long discussions or edit-warring about relatively trivial matters. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Refer to [1]. It says "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory." "It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." It has been mentioned that there might be potential libel against either the Sri Lankan Government or the Sri Lankan High Commission. Some of the commentary has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of substantiated or validated sources for some commentary. This is just in reference to the Australian Story article and not other articles by the ABC. ABC is under a general consensus to be reliable. I don't deny that. Though the ABC has had libel cases before. Bran488 ( talk) 14:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
WWGB - it's not just my (and Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo's) opinion that the case is high-profile - it would not be on Wikipedia were it not, surely? Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 13:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, the academic's quote is beyond the court findings. The commentary was either rejected or not tested in the courts due to the validated and verified outcome of the cases, therefore the terminology used to describe the quote is appropriate as a reference for the proceeding quotation by the academic as it contradicts the findings of the court and tribunal hearings and the corroborated evidence. It has not been substantiated, nor is there provision of secondary substantiated or validated sources for the commentary. Hence the term "allegedly" has been used due to the potential of libel as it is opinion based. Further corroboration has been provided to ascertain this. It is not part of the quotation. It is based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited with further citations. I'm of the thought that the article should remain neutral and not politically motivated. This has been discussed already. Bran488 ( talk) 08:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Bran488: has repeatedly inserted "alleged" into the text so that it reads {{
Damien Kingsbury, an academic specialising in international politics, said that even though the civil war had ended, Sri Lanka was allegedly still dangerous for some minorities, saying ...}}. This was
undone by @
WWGB:, reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary it's not part of the quotation. It's a neutral independent analysis of the statement based upon the further corroboration that has been ascertained and cited
, undone by
myself and & reinserted by Bran488 with the edit summary that's not part of the quotation in any case. It's based upon the corroboration as had been cited and ascertained by the court findings. As has been discussed in the talk page
. The difficulty with this particular edit is that the referenced source is "Although the conflict has ended, Professor Kingsbury said the political situation was still dangerous for some minorities and people with links to the Tamil Tigers. He said people still "disappear" and were tortured." It is a clear statement of opinion by the Kingsbury and properly attributed to him. It is entirely inappropriate to tone down Kingsley's opinion to falsely attribute Kingsley as saying it was ""allegedly dangerous".
Whether a place is dangerous is a matter of opinion & it is entirely normal for people to have a different opinion. The appropriate manner to deal with such disagreement in accordance with WP:NPV is to identify and attribute the other point of view with reliable sources. -- Find bruce ( talk) 09:17, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Bran488 and his alter egos have been blocked indefinitely as sock puppets. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)