Talk:Children Overboard Affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Children Overboard Affair article.
Article policies
Flag
Portal
 Children Overboard Affair is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article was the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight (17 - 26 October 2004). For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Title

-can i suggest that the article is titled Children overboard affair rather than scandal, both for NPOV issues, and because this is the more common title.- DONE The bellman 05:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No objections here. Ambi 06:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
DONE: end of topic (check! tic! whatever!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SIEV-X

There should be a See Also SIEV-X here, but that leads to another affair to document.

Actually, it does and doesn't. Read the Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident. The Children Overboard Affair relates to SEIV-4. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I knew it was "another affair".
Mark Hurd 08:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another see also: MV Tampa, and that's rather complete. Mark Hurd 18:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And also the book 'A Certain Maritime Incident', Tony Kevin, 2004 Scribe Publications, ISBN 1920769218 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 14:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK, references and sources of information

That's it for now. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Children Overboard Image

It's one of the images officially releaed by the DOD, I got it from the library here [1]. I've altered the copyright tag according to the defence media organisations specifications--nixie 04:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

Here's how I'm thinking of structuring the article.

  1. Background
  2. "Children overboard"
  3. Select Commission

There. Simple as that. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I thought a timeline would be good too--nixie 13:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah! Definitely. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:14, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I know I'm meant to be on hiatus at all, but it's 3am and I can't sleep. Timelines generally don't go down very well on FAC - while it might be a good idea to have a section describing the chronology of events, I don't think putting it in timeline form is very wise. Ambi 17:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Howard never lied

Stricly speaking, Howard never lied on this one.

He didn't quite repeat the claim, he just said something to the effect that "He had a report that said that Children had been thrown overboard".

Which he did. He may or may not have been told or otherwise known that the report was true, but he didn't say that it was. Only that it was in his possession.

Regards, Ben Aveling 20:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This idea is not very credible. Howard led the government through the election in which false claims were put forward by his government. It has been shown that his department had been advised that the claims were untrue, and if he was not "told", it must be said that he was complicit in his ignorance and as the claims were highly controversial, and clearly the truth was just under his nose. AFAIK - no one in his department has been held responsible for the deception which again, re-inforces Howards' complicity. --Wm 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
His department had been informed before he announced that. Anyway, as he very well knew, the public are likely to ignore prefaces like "he had a report" and regard the rest simply as an authoritive announcement of a truth. That preface is commonly used by politicians, especially Howard, so they will not be held accountable for announcing that information, despite its effect. The public are not dispassionate observers who rationally assess claims, as he was aware; therefore, by announcing it he was insinuating that it most likely is true. For such an explosive claim from a high ranking public figure, Howard was morally obliged to check its veracity carefully, which he didn't do. Instead, he announced this, on spurious grounds, and never retracted it or apologised when it was manifestly clear that it was false. He was more interested in defending his and his party's conduct.
In consideration of its import, someone ought to have been disciplined; but, as it happened, he denied anyone need disciplining. Reith, who was exposed as a liar, retired and got a high paying diplomatic job — hardly punishment.
It was blindingly obvious that Howard and Reith had acted immorally, but they got away with it because of the lack of public interest. The government increased its numbers in both houses of parliament. Such acts of dishonesty are not uncommon by incumbent parties, but the "children overboard" affair was still reprehensible. Rintrah 08:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I should also add he said: "I can't comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard". It clearly refers to the children overboard claim, and for it to be relevant, he was insinuating to the audience it was most likely true. With this insinuation, however, he had a responsibility to verify it, rather than suggest it might be true.
We know what happened. Rintrah 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like original research to me. Asylum-seekers had thrown their children overboard in earlier incidents. We cannot say that he lied unless we know that he told a deliberate untruth, and there simply is no source for this. We can report widespread suspicion, but we cannot make statements for which we have no source. --Jumbo
What it sounds like is irrelevant; in whatever case, this is a talk-page, so original research is as welcome as any other research. Most of the information I have provided — not the moral arguments — is corroborated by Senate Estimates and documents based on it. The issue is well covered and sourced in Senate documents and the media. I was explicating it and not suggesting what should be incorporated into the article. Other editors can decide the content and format of the article.
Yes, apparently they did. However, a few incidents do not warrant dehumanised profile of asylum-seekers, just as Australian criminals do not prove this nation to be a convict nation.
The issue of truth is more complex than what is true or false. Politicians rarely tell simple lies — ones which are patently false and the speaker knows to be untrue —; but they deftly deceive and manipulate the public with deception. In Howard's case, he made an inflammatory claim, with an explosive effect, apparently without having first investigating it properly within his department. Upon its reception, public hatred to asylum-seekers was inflamed. Thus, he was morally obliged to substantiate his bold claim before making it, which he had refrained. He refused to apologise for this false statement.
Reith was worse: he lied outright, as the subsequent investigations demonstrated.
If all political statements were judged on a simple truth-falsehood dichtomy, politicans could practise vile deception with impunity. Rintrah 11:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Without intending any offence, but perhaps you are holding politicians to a higher standard than you would like for yourself? As Wikipedia editors we should be very certain of our statements.
You say that Howard "made an inflammatory claim, with an explosive effect, apparently without having first investigating it properly within his department." But just how straightforward and truthful is this? It seems to me that very few Australians were present at the scene of the incident, and "investigating it properly" is something that would naturally have taken time. In fact "proper investigation" is something that happens long after the event, and when government spokesmen hold press conferences to satisfy news interest, the information that they pass on is that which they have received, unless it is patently false. At the time, John Howard was passing on the best information he had been given, which in the light of previous incidents of asylum-seekers deliberately throwing their children overboard and destroying their vessels so as to force a rescue, was quite credible.
In this case, it turned out not to be the truth, due to what might charitably be called a failure of communication within the Department of Defence. I will agree that Peter Reith lied, but it is unclear as to when he confessed this to the Prime Minister. In fact, there is no evidence that John Howard was told the truth of the matter at a senior level before the election. How much was plausible denial and how much was confusion and contradiction, we may never know, but if you will recall, there were many different stories and claims put forward in the media at the time. I doubt that John Howard believed everything he read in the papers (or was told by junior staffers), and quite reasonably he would have insisted on proper investigation before he changed his version of the story.
However, what you and I might suspect is not something that properly belongs in an encyclopaedia article. We should report the facts as best we know them, and when there are differing well-sourced versions, we should give both without giving our "official" support to either. --Jumbo 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
First, let us separate the issues: my comments were in response to a user's comments above, and they were not suggestions for the article. As to how straightfoward and truthful my quote above is, it was clearly inflammatory: read transcripts of talk-back radio pertaining to the issue, and look back at the media attention to this for its effect. It prejudiced asylum-seekers as devious and immoral, even though the allegation was dubious and pertained to one alleged incident. "Proper investigation", in the context I implied, necessitates ascertaining the claim to a high degree of certainty before creating a circus-like media issue of it, by reporting it on talk-back radio, and through that channel, to the rest of the media. The other "proper investigation", in your context, does take a long time. If Howard had checked the report using reliable source, a first-hand one, he would have "properly investigated" it, in my meaning. A naval vessel was present at the scene.
To use a more extreme example for illustration, it would be immoral to report to the media a report which alleged someone murdered some person, unless the source was verified as highly credible; and just as reporting it would prejudice someone's case, making the children-overboard claim affected the community's perceptions to asylum-seekers, and it changed the parameters of debate in the 2001 election contest.
Government ministers do not passively "pass on" information to the media, and only refrain if it is patently false. If only starkly evident falsity prevented them from reporting things, they would make all kinds of vile claims carelessly. They respond to questions and choose what information is revealed, based on its veracity and media effect — for the latter, note how little local electorate issues are reported in the press gallery. Howard could have easily sought better information, as he was morally obliged to, in consideration of its effect, by commisioning staff to properly investigate it — tentatively, at least. The more credible allegations of children been thrown overboard surfaced after the inquiry into the false allegation, so no light was shed on this allegation to merit it. And even if the allegations transpired before, anecdotal evidence of these events does not make another allegation highly credible, it just adds to the suspicion.
There was indeed a failure of communication, as you put it, and a failure to verify the allegation, whereof the Prime Minister should have had more interest in, and should have at least made a preliminary check. But, if you examine the issue more carefully, imputing a "failure of communication" to an egregious mistake was government spin.
I agree with your comments on objectivity in the article, but they are irrelevant to the discussion here, which pertains to whether Howard was honest. "Official support", as you imply it, is and never was relevant. Rintrah 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your rhetorical question but perhaps you are holding politicians to a higher standard than you would like for yourself?, if I understand it correctly, is yes, if by holding, you mean holding them responsible. I do not govern, nor do I do anything as important as that role, so if I quote an incorrect source for a media issue, I do not deserve severe reproach. The ethics of their profession should be stricter than mine, a student. The country is not interested in whether I believe children were thrown overboard. I have not taken offence; I have just been writing this while I should have been in bed, sadly. 14:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Judging Howard's actions with 20:20 hindsight is not helpful. As I've pointed out, there were previous incidents of children being thrown overboard, so that part of the story was credible, and in this particular case the behaviour of the asylum-seekers was such that it was made even more credible. Children were held as if they were going to be thrown over the side, and several of the occupants jumped off the vessel. John Howard had no reason to doubt the initial story.
You seem to be saying that he should have wholeheartedly adopted the views of his strongest opponents on this issue. With respect, that is hardly reasonable. John Howard took the course of action that presented himself, his government and his policy in the best possible light without actually telling deliberate untruths. Realistically, that is what we get from governments of every political shade. As I said, very few Australians were on the scene, and for some time the messages coming back were fragmentary, confused and contradictory, especially where they had been filtered through Peter Reith's office. Getting a full and complete report from the crew of a patrol boat, especially where the vessel was well offshore and engaged in ongoing operations, took time. For example, there was a considerable gap between the initial reports of photographic and video coverage and its delivery. Expecting John Howard (or Peter Reith, for that matter) to assume that the photographic evidence did NOT verify the initial reports is a very big ask. It is reasonable that they would wait until they could view the footage before making any comment to the contrary. Even when it transpired that the footage did not actually show children being thrown overboard did not mean that it had not happened. --Jumbo 14:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we should adopt a higher standard than that of partisan politicians. Nobody expects party leaders to be impartial, least of all during an election campaign. --Jumbo 14:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I am judging Howard's actions on his responsibilities at the time. Yes, there were a few incidents, which transpired later, but they do not form credible evidence for another incident — it happened a few times, so it most likely happened again. At best, the suspicion is credible, and not the story in itself.
Yes, children were held over the side, but the first-hand witnesses did not report children were thrown overboard. This, again, does not make the case credible, even in Howard's circumstances.
Why did he have no reason to doubt the story? Because Reith told him it happened? He is the leader of Australia and these kinds of statements are of national importance. He needs better evidence than a Defence Minister's word. Previous reported incidents do not constitute incontrovertable evidence it happened again.
I am not saying he had to "wholeheartly agree with the views his opponents"; I am saying he should have properily verified the story before reporting it, as it importance warrants. You do not say what you mean by the "views of his opponents". Prima facie, you argument appears strawman.
John Howard took the course of action that presented himself, his government and his policy in the best possible light without actually telling deliberate untruths. — what do you mean? The part of your sentence after the comma is missing a verb, and thus is ambiguous. By "taking the course of action that presented himself", do you mean he acted by what he thought was right, or acted expediently? Without further explanation, I do not see how this statement defends his actions.
If the messages were highly ambiguous, as you state, they should not be reported until they confidently know the truth, which should not be ambiguous. There was no urgency in reporting the incident, so there was nothing wrong in waiting until they had sufficient evidence. Making bold allegations and verifying them later is a very bad practice in politics.
Yes, I do expect John Howard not to believe the photographic evidence verifies it, because the photos clearly do not verify it, even then. It is a not a big ask: a grainy photo with people in the water does not even suggest children were thrown overboard, in any rational sense. Peter Reith cannot be defended, because he was a liar. Making bold allegations then waiting for the video for contrary evidence is not a good practice either. They ought to rely on compelling evidence first. It is not moral to announce people are evil, then wait for the real evidence to rule for or against the claim.
I do not subscribe to any party's ideology — not Labour, nor Liberal — so I do not partake in partisan politics. I do not see how your comment is relevant here. Yes, no one expects leaders to be impartial in an election campaign, but this does not mean that Howard's partiality to the idea asylum seekers were devious and wicked justified his announcing a poorly supported allegation, which was related to him by Reith. Rintrah 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Another issue re propper conduct is declaring people to have committed criminal offences where no case has been tried. Assuming, of course, asylum seekers detained by authorities were subject to Australian common law during observation and arrest. If that is the case then presuming guilt without trial, photographs or not, is highly improper.

[edit] Asylum Seekers vs Refugees

It is a subtle but vital distinction that must be made: the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. An asylum seeker becomes a refugee when the government determines that his or her claim for asylum is legitimate. Many asylum seekers are not, in fact, legitimate refugees, but instead illegal immigrants.

It therefore may be necessary to change some of the language of this article: SIEV-4 was NOT "laden with refugees," nor is it correct to suggest or imply that the Australian government "turns away refugees;" legitimate refugees are welcome and accepted in Australia.

[unsigned comment dated 08:51, 2 February 2006 by 59.167.59.150]

  • The reference to "asylum seeker" in the lead goes straight to refugee. If you consider that the actual phrase "The refugee laden SIEV-4" misrepresents or inaccurately impugns the Howard government's border protection regime, you may edit the article as you see fit (as may anyone else in turn). You may also wish to pursue this semantic distinction in displaced person, illegal alien, illegal immigration, refugee and/or refugee (disambiguation). Declare 09:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Aren't there two legal definitions of "refugee" here: one recognised by international law; the other by the country wherein the person seeks asylum? Although the two may coincide, they are not necessarily the same. Rintrah 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Asylum-seeker" is a convenient catch-all phrase which includes both illegal immigrants and refugees, allowing one word to be used without making specific judgements. In hindsight we cannot say that SIEV-4 was laden exclusively with refugees or illegal immigrants, as both categories were found to have been aboard after investigation. Linking "asylum-seeker" directly to refugee is as misleading as linking the word to "illegal immigrant".
Perhaps we need a new article defining "asylum-seeker", giving some background as to why it is used when status is unclear? --Jumbo 13:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
The word 'refugee' means a person seeking refuge. There is no difference in meaning between 'refugee' and 'asylum seeker' in common English (avoiding legal definitions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.216.30 (talk) 06:50, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Logic should be taught in a more forthright manner, I feel. Some asylum-seekers are genuine refugees, some are illegal immigrants. Both seek asylum, but the Pakistani taxi-driver seeking wealth in Australia is not the same as the Afghani fleeing war. "Asylum-seeker" is a neutral and factual term to save the blood pressure of those who don't like to see refugees labelled illegal immigrants, and vice versa. --Pete 07:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough though it's more an esoteric point of moral philosophy (if you see a man in a desert who is thirsty, do you give him a drink or ask him why he came to the desert without enough water? Motivation for ending up on a boat off the coast of Australia a refugee make?). The point is moot anyway - conventions dictate 'asylum seeker' is the hideously politically correct phase to be used and those of us who shudder at the sight of this disassociated English will have to suffer in silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.197.212 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to edit the comment I made directly above, the correct term is PIIs - Potential Illegal Immigrants. This is the term used by the navy, coast guard, immigration department and other authorities. It cannot be held as an unfair label (the word 'potential' means what it says). If PII was the term used at the time, shouldn't we use it here? 'Asylum Seeker' implies the people were actively seeking refugee status where they may have been lost or the first part of an invasion force (if you believe some people!), none of which would be known before the occupants were questioned. An 'asylum seeker' is someone known to be seeking asylum whereas a SEIV vessel's occupants and their motives for being in Australian boarder patrol areas are unknown at the time of contact. They could be Australian citizens for all the border patrol authorities know. 'Potential' is the key word within this topic of vague semantics.

So, suggest we adopt something wild and imaginative like calling them 'people' (or PII's from the point of the patrol authorities) without reference to any refugee status or other categorisation: logically and grammatically correct, easy to implement. If there are no objections, I will make the relevant changes (in a few weeks) ... :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened next?

At the end of the article currently is "they were reelected with an increased lower house majority, and a newfound majority in the Senate, an outcome that raises doubts as to whether the inquiry will proceed." If this is the 2004 election, have there been any developments since then? Did the inquiry begin? Telsa (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It occured in the 2001 election . As I remember, there was a senate estimates enquiry, in which most of the facts of the article surfaced. Other than journalism on the subject, I don't think there was any more investigation. I do not remember the scope of the original enquiry either; but the outcome was that the public service was implicated by the government, with quite a lot of prevarication too, and they were adamant that no one needed disciplining.
A certain major of the armed forces "took the dive" for the government, so to speak. He testified that he had given false information to the government prior to their announcement of the claims, whereupon Howard was allowed to assert he had "torpedoed" the Opposition's argument.
Reith, the then defence minister, was shown to have lied on several occasions, and had definitely known the claim was false when it was being announced publicly. Though, he retired after the election and was given a high paying job overseas, and was not publicly criticised by his collegues.
If I remember correctly, the information had reached Howard's department before he announced the claim, but I need to double check. It is quite evident, however, he had not rigourously assessed the claim before he made the extroadinary announcement. There were another claim, announced by the government, that there was a video proving the government's account, although this was never shown. As it states in the article, the 'children overboard' was shown to be spurious, so the video was a fabrication. In an interview on Four Corners, an investigative program, Howard evaded the question of the video many times, instead referring to the pictures which had been released by the government, which only showed a few people floating in the water.
The incident has not been forgotten, and is sometimes used to point to the government's dishonesty, but it is largely historical now. There are unlikely to be any developments now because the government controls the senate, in which most significant enquiries are instigated. Public interest has waned, so there is little journalism now on the subject, except an occasional reflection.
If you want more information, you can trawl through the boring senate estimates, or, for a partisan account, read the section on the Labour party's website. I do not know of any significant investigative articles that I can point to. Rintrah 07:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To what end?

To someone unfamiliar with the scandal, and with Australia's handling of boat-loads of asylum-seekers in general, it's hard to see why a claim that children had been tossed off of a boat would be useful to the government. It's also not obvious what the supposed motivation would be for the alleged act. Both points should probably be explained, perhaps in the Background section. —Eric S. Smith 13:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It was useful for the marketing of their border protection policy and for their 2001 election campaign. They made border protection a central issue of their election campaign, as illustrated by the government ad in which Howard declaims "we will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come". By making this a central issue, they assumed that the issue was very important to voters, or would be if they campaigned enough on it.
Most, or at least a great part, of the focus was on border protection. Their policy was more popular among voters than Labour's; some ministers even stressed this fact in interviews.
Before the claim, most talkback radio callers expressed indignation or mistrust of the asylum seekers on the boat. For those voters who cared, most probably did not want them settled in Australia, or for them to be put in mandatory detention.
Since it was made by high ranking government ministers, the claim had a great effect on voters. It portrayed, or seemed to portray, asylum seekers as suspect. Most of the One Nation voters, who comprised a significant percentage of the voting population, were former Coalition voters. They could be swayed by racial issues, like the Children Overboard Affair.
The claim benefited the government because it appealed to One Nation voters and swinging voters who mistrusted asylum seeks. It seemingly justified their suspicion against asylum seekers and the government's policy, which was tougher than Labour's. The negative effect of them appearing to be dishonest afterwards was less than the positive effect.
The motivation was that it would stir popular sentiment in support of their border protection policy, thus giving them more numbers in the election. They didn't fabricate the claim; they merely announced something inflammatory and suspicious, without rigorously checking it first, and commented on it as if it were true: e.g., Howard: "I can't comprehend how genuine refugees would throw their children overboard".
I can't add all of this to the background because it is in argument, and wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Objective information which helps explain it should be added instead. Rintrah 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed paragraph

Please appropriately justify the exclusion of this paragraph before reverting again:

The Howard reelection campaign focused heavily on "trust" and many thought this would be a debilitating blow. The government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair [2] and indeed they were reelected with an increased lower house majority, and a newfound majority in the Senate.

The reason given is "rv - that paragraph was not only unnecessary, but completely biased", but the premise of it has not been justified. If this paragraph is factual, I believe it is relevant, and doesn't have an unwarranted bias. Prima facie, the only POV statement to is "many thought this would be a debilitating blow", which does not have a citation to support it. "The government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair", I believe, is significant because it explicates the circumstances of the affair, and thus is relevant — i.e., necessary. If it is "completely biased", please show how it is not objective. If the paragraph is true, it is both necessary and not excessively biased. Rintrah 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Because you're making a very clear implication that the fact that the government won the 2004 election vindicates the Howard line that the public was uninterested in the affair. This is pure bias. Rebecca 08:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

But in the previous paragraph we have Labor making the affair a "central part" of their campaign. If we include Labor's view, we should also include the Liberal view - and the result of the election. A source is given for the "not interested" statement. As this part of the article stands, we are not telling the whole story. Either include the views of both sides, or none. --Jumbo 10:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write it, so I did not express anything. I think citing the government view is important to understanding the background, so the citation should stay. I have reread the paragraph and agree that implication exists and is unsupported by any argument or source. "The many thought" part should be removed too because it is weasel language. Rintrah 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Other than the unsourced "many thought this would be a telling blow" bit and the "and indeed" bit, the paragraph wasn't a major problem at all. This needed a brush up, not deletion. It was clearly cited following the ALP line and then the Liberal Party line and then the result of the election. The article reads weirdly without it. My wife (with no idea about Australian politics0 read the article and asked "So what happened next?" You have this teaser of Labor going in to the election with the affair as their major platform, then.... nothing. The electoral impact of the "scandal" is 100% important and as such I am re-inserting the paragraph. Rebecca needs to justify WHY things are biased before removing them. If it had just said "The public didn't care and voted the liberals back in" it would be biased, but the article before the removal of that para clearly stated the positions of both parties and the outcome of the election so the reader could make up their mind. 70.189.213.149 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph was in the "Scrafton and the reopened inquiry" section but is logically irrelevant to it. Moreover, the article lead-in contains statements about the election outcome (which can be expanded upon if inadequate). The paragraph is removed. --Bren 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government claims?

I've removed the following: "The Howard reelection campaign focused heavily on "trust" and throughout the government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair." The source given did not back up this statement. We have the following, "TONY EASTLEY: The Government is maintaining that the children overboard affair is of no interest to the general public.", which is merely a journalist's opinion. If we are telling our readers that the Government said something, we need a Government source, and nothing in the subsequent interview shows Eastley's view to be correct.

I don't think that there's any doubt that the Government campaigned on trust, but again, the quoted source does not back up the statement. Overall, this is very shoddy work. --Pete 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

stop picking fights just for the sake of it Pete, you don't dispute the fact so all that is needed is a source, either find a source yourself or leave it there with the {{fact}} note. and get off your high horse while you're at it. WikiTownsvillian 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't take yourself too seriously, otherwise I might take offence at you calling my edits "crap". The problem is that a reference was given, and as I have pointed out, it didn't back up the statement. Looks like you are trying to have a second bite of the cherry here. And yes, I do dispute the statement. I haven't seen anything saying that the government maintained that the public was uninterested - on the contrary, the government devoted a lot of campaigning to this very issue. As for trust, that's also irrelevant - the government slogan was "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" Perhaps you are confusing the two meanings of the word "interest"? --Pete 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Although it is I didn't call your particular edit crap, I called your style of confrontational editing crap. You just said "I don't think that there's any doubt that the Government campaigned on trust" and now you say "I do dispute the statement", I'm not engaging in your games, if you wish to remove the reference than bring it up at wikiproject politics, if there is any question about your edits I do not take them to be in good faith after my previous experiences and the experiences of others with your editing style. I will edit it to reflect the lack of my general knowledge to back up the uninterested line. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Now you are just being provocative. Looking at the previous history of this article, I think it is clear that the government's response during the election campaign needs to be included, but just spinning the straight ALP line isn't on. I had hoped that we could work on this together, because I don't want to nibble away at the article as so many others do, instead building something relevant, objective and well-sourced, but really, turning Wikipedia into ALPopedia isn't serving our readers very well at all. Now, if you'll give me a bit of time, I'll look through the references available and see if I can come up with something for you to comment on. --Pete 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
<---

I have restored it to the article, without it the article focus is only on the ALP campaign with it there the LIB campaign is now also covered hence making it balanced. Both campaigns focused on this event as an issue, it should be given greater detail within the article as the events notability is/was more about the politics than its actual occurrence Gnangarra 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that this is something that needs more work. However, the Liberal campaign thrust was on trust with regard to interest rates - Linking that to the COA is a long bow to draw, IMO. Only one side of politics seems to have made the assertion. It would be good to have a government view for balance. --Pete 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph was in the "Scrafton and the reopened inquiry" section but is logically irrelevant to it. Moreover, the article lead-in contains statements about and links to the election outcome (which can be expanded upon if inadequate). The paragraph is removed. --Bren 09:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias in article

I've made some edits countering bias in this article. There's still some work needs to be done, but the main problem is that it has been slanted to give the impression that the Prime Minister and senior Ministers knew that no children had been thrown overboard and deliberately lied during the election campaign to give a false impression. This view is not supported by the inquiry, nor by anyone who actually took part in the events.

The reality is that news of the event came from only one source, the Royal Australian Navy officers on the scene. Their initial reports lacked detail and although they stated that video and pictures were forthcoming, they necessarily took some time. In the light of the pattern of behaviour with suspected illegal entry vessels (including at least one instance where children had been thrown overboard) where the asylum-seekers deliberately abotaged their vessels in order to be rescued by Australians rather than turned back into international waters, the impression was gained that again, children had been thrown overboard. Video and pictures, when they did arrive, could be interpreted to support this view.

Naturally, during the election campaign, when illegal entry was a hot topic, the initial reports were made much of. When media reports began getting back to the crew of the navy vessel, it was clear to the crew (who at that stage were the only people who know that the story was wrong) that a mistake had been made. Some of the crew sent private emails, but of course these didn't go to the government. The captain reported through the chain of command, but somewhere within the Defence Department - and here the finger is pointed at Peter Reith and some of his staffers - any information contrary to the line already given out was sat upon, delayed and spun.

Of course the Prime Minister was informed that the children hadn't been thrown overboard. All he had to do was look at the television. And junior staffers might also have informed him. However, his Defence Minister and senior officers were still hedging until they knew the facts, and when it comes to a choice of who to believe, the official chain of command is always going to come out on top until demonstrated to be wrong.

The article doesn't mention any of the misinterpretation, delays and uncertainties. It gives a false impression that the government lied over the incident for political gain. Untruths were certainly told, but lies are deliberate untruths, and with the exception of Peter Reith and his staff, there is no evidence that lies were actually told. I note that Peter Reith was out of a job soon after this.

My concern is that the article should reflect the reality, rather than the line taken by the Opposition parties, and we should either get rid of all the weasel words, or show both sides of the story accurately. --Pete 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been an AAP report [[3]] which has tracked changes in the article back to sources in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This raises obvious concerns about the motives of those who are making changes. Would contributors like to identify whether or not they have affiliations with any Australian political party or public service body (I don't, for the record) when explaining the motives for their changes? -- jon 07:44, 24 August 2007

Yeah, has anyone tracked down exactly which edits to this page were made by Howard's office? Does anyone have an opinion, is it worth mentioning on the article page that part of the manipulation of the children overboard story appears to have extended to modification of this article? Spamburgler 00:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikiscanner only shows edits made by anons, using the IP address trail. Presumably we (or anyone else) may check IP addresses and see where they end up. I notice that Kevin Rudd admits that his lot have edited WP. He says only "factual" edits were made, but he would say that, wouldn't he? User:Adam Carr, a Federal ALP staffer, did an enormous amout of editing of political articles, most of it during work hours, but he was pretty even-handed about his edits. --Pete 02:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] further comment

its a beat up all over. the children got wet because of the parents actions, so the only dispute is the timing. One day difference i in timing is what it all comes down to. The senate committee focuses on actual facts at the time of the the bout being placed in tow. and why waste time here in wikipedia when the "Revert Cops" come around every five minutes to beat you up for not paying them enough ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.210 (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


(wet? jeez...) Regardless of individual opinions, this matter occurred during an election and details of it are significant for many reasons including issues of institutionalised race hatred (at extremes) and corruption. The ramifications of a government making inaccurate claims to forward their political interests are very real. SIEV X did sink within an Australian parole zone killing around 350 people (refer to the book 'A Certain Maritime Incident' by Tony Kevin). Accounts of SEIV vessels regularly destroying themselves or people on-board sacrificing children have not been reported by the AFP and indeed genuine PII (Potentially Illegal Immigrants) people-smuggling vessels have always been very eager to cooperate with Australian authorities in order to subject their occupants to the governmental refugee testing processed as soon as possible. Thus there is no reason why PIIs would sink their own boats or chuck their kids over the side just to get 'rescued'. People smugglers have always cooperated with the APF as hardly any have been charged, preferring to seek extradition to Indonesia where people smuggling is not a crime. Even the captain of the SIEV X vessel was extradited (to Egypt - country of origin). There are a lot of facts but so far the government has been extremely successful in blurring and obfuscating information and, in this case, fostering a lie that actually leaked. Australians have a responsibility to hold their governments to task for acting in a dubiously legal manner to further their interests lest corruption become a part of the political scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC) ((updated for general consumption, now with 22% natural fibre))
Inevitably any analysis of the events of the Children Overboard Affair/Scandal/Incident/Event will be called politically biased.

[edit] Asylum seeker issue a smokescreen for Howard Governent's high immigration policies

I found the whole scandal highly perplexing. Whilst John Howard clearly lied for electoral gain, I don't see why simply initially telling the truth would have actually made that much difference. Clearly, someone on SIEV IV deliberately scuttled the ship in order to force the Royal Australian Navy personnel to rescue them so that they could have access to the Australian legal system and it is more than likely that a number of the passengers would have colluded in that, thereby putting the lives of all on board, including the children, at risk.

Er, no, towing the boat caused it to sink... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.212.170 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I had found it frustrating that refugee advocates tend to evade the issue of precisely what is a fair approach to all potential asylum-seekers and immigrants, easily numbering many tens of millions across refugee camps all over the world, not to mention hundreds of millions more in dire poverty. Should those who are prepared to take the risks entailed in sailing aboard boats such as SIEV IV have special entitlements over and above those many more numerous left behind in refugee camps?

Ironically, the whole issue has been used as a smokescreen to allow John Howard, notwithstanding his tough border protection posture, to ramp up his Government's high immigration policies in spite of it being widely acknowledged that it was the unpopularity of the previous Labor Government's high immigration policies which helped to get John Howard elected in 1996 ("Among the Barbarians" p112, Paul Sheehan, 1998). The real unofficial rate of immigration is now as high has 300,000 (and officially around 140,000) up from the rate of 68,000 to which Howard cut it shortly after he was elected (see "Back-scratching at a national level" by Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald of 13 June 2007)

--User:fearlessfly 01:51, 20 2007 (UTC)

So rescuing SIEV IV people would open Australia to "tens of millions" of refugees? Hmmm. Slac speak up! 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Entire section irrelevant to this entry. (BTW Citing an opinion that doesn't provide sources is as bad as not providing a citation in the first place, probably worse as it gives said opinion false credibility.)

There is no statement as to the composition of the senate inquiry. There is no statement as to the exact lie that Peter Reith told. WHen Peter Reith said "these photos prove I am correct", in fact the only lie was the the photo showed his timing was wrong, but otherwise he was right. In fact Peter Reith never made a statement about timing. So at worst his statements are only misleading but not a lie. 202.92.33.210 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC) BTW I am an ALP member for 14 years, but I think only idiot ALP members would bother with this inquiry!202.92.33.210 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Misleading == lie. Semantics. This section not relevant. ENTIRE ARTICLE NEEDS WRAPPING UP AND FINALISING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.197.212 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is not scuttling the boat as good a throwing someone overboard.

While people may not of actually hung children over the side of the boat they still delibratly stuttled the boat which will end up with the same result in the end. This point is always ignored by the media in Australia which tends to always have a left leaning slant on any story about refugees or immigration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.112.158 (talk) 06:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

They are simply not the same thing. Do you have clear proof that deliberate sabotage by the passengers caused the SIEV-4 to sink? --Bren 06:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Or any information to lead to the conclusion that Australian media, in all its forms, is left wing biased? It's irrelevant in any case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.167.197.212 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

It doesnt matter why the boat , whether it broke due to being towed, whether it needed careful handling to avoid filling with water, or whether it was sabotaged.. the fact is that the boat was not safe for ocean transportation in the first place, it never was, it was a boat used on lakes and rivers only, and the parents put their children in that boat to come to australia. that means that the claim "the parents threw their children into the ocean" is 100% perfectly proved true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.92.33.210 (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a matter for the people smugglers who captained and crewed the vessel, not the people on it who were almost certainly told it was 'very safe'. Next you'll argue someone who smashes their children's head in with a fire poker is of equal criminal culpability to to someone who lets their kid walk home from school every day resulting in him/her being run over at an intersection.
In the end it doesn't matter and it's not for encyclopaedia writers to pass judgement or write editorials like this, just write up available information, summarised where possible, and make clear where the details of all that info came from so other people can do their own research if they want.

[edit] misleading paragraph in section: 'senate inquiry and findings' (viz dissenting minority report)

The following paragraph should be deleted as innaccurate and misleading:

"The subsequent Senate inquiry later found that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm, and, in the case of SIEV-7 on 22 October, a child had been thrown overboard and rescued by another asylum seeker [1]"

The footnote as it appears here actually links to nothing, but the paragraph itself is identical to one that appears in the Wikipedia entry for 'John Howard' (the current Australian Prime Minister). There, the footnote is '[42]', which links to an Appendix in a minority report by Australian government members of the Senate Committee investigating 'A Certain Maritime Incident'. These members actually dissented from the main findings of the senate inquiry.

As a point of fact then, the claims contained in the offending paragraph cannot be said to represent the findings of 'the subsequent Senate inquiry', as the paragraph suggests.

If it is to be left in the entry, this context should be made clear -- for example: 'A dissenting minority report, produced by members of the Howard government who participated in the Senate inquiry, sugested that passengers aboard other SIEVs ... etc'.

In my view, however, the relevance of such claims about other SIEVs to the subject of this entry (and continuing issues concerning their factual basis) should result in the whole paragraph being deleted (or at least removed for further discussion).

Filipio 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, these reports of previous incidents of self-harm and sabotage are statements of fact, not denied in the report as a whole. An addition to the report, rather than dissension, I suggest! The relevance to the COA is that there was a history of sabotage and children being threatened and actually thrown overboard. I also note an assumption that John Howard knew at the time everything which we know now. He didn't, and it is unfair to say that he was lying. --Pete 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

One child overboard on a different boat is not the same as children overboard (plural) on SIEV-4. The context should be accurate and clear if it is to be included. Bren 06:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of "dissenting minority" context

A disputed edit has been made twice in succession (here & here) without talkpage explanation (despite request). Skyring/Pete, please explain why? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The fact that there was an existing history of self-harm, sabotage and child-throwing on previous SIEVs is important. This reality exists outside of the Senate report and may be sourced elsewhere, if required. By attempting to downplay the significance of the report, you likewise attempt to cast doubt on important facts. --Pete 03:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  • If you agree that context is important, why did you oversimplify the sentence to "the report found". The prior wording did not downplay anything. It stated concise fact about who authored the dissenting report, a relevant fact of which the reader should be made aware. Your edit diminished contextual granularity and, from commentary above, it lacks consensus. Please seek consensus, avoid disruptive editing and avoid 3RR. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 03:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the facts, I'm actually rewriting this diff which you made without gaining consensus, one of several hotly-contested edits resulting in you later being blocked for edit-warring. In point of fact, I say "the report also noted", which is a good summary of the situation. The only person who thinks that the report is "dissenting" is you. As I suggested earlier, this is not true. --Pete 03:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Skyring/Pete, please focus on the content issue at hand, seek consensus for disputed changes to content that otherwise withstood a test of time, and avoid removing contextual detail from articles.

Please note (as I indicated on your talkpage) that at no stage was I blocked for edit warring on Children Overboard Affair, nor does this talkpage evidence your claim that my edits were hotly contested (least of all the diff you cite, which is merely a diff between two of my own edits, and thus does not illustrate your point). The Children Overboard Affair was previously protected by MastCell after I requested it despite Prester John arguing against it and making unfounded reverts (per talk section below). Spending more time debating about me than about content is unproductive. Please employ honesty in debate and focus on content. Please engage in talkpage discussion for disputed edits, avoid disruptive editing, justify your edits (instead of keeping the rationale "in your mind", as you say on your talkpage) and seek consensus.

Regarding your contested edit, the prior wording is a more concise, accurate description of the dissenting report. Your re-wording skews the context of the dissenting report by implying that the Committee as a whole made the findings contained in the dissenting report, which it did not. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 04:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The information on the existing history of sabotage, self-harm and child-throwing is required for context. It doesn't matter if some, all, or none of the Senate committee included it in their report - we can source these facts elsewhere if need be, but the report is a convenient source.

By claiming (untruthfully) that this was a dissenting report for political ends, you are casting doubt on the accuracy of the information, when no doubt actually exists. It took me a while to notice your edit, but I'm correcting it now. --Pete 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the inclusion of info about what happened on other boats (although note the original commentor had reservations). What is under question is the removal of concise details of the dissenting report's origins. It was a dissenting report. It was reported as a "dissenting report" (see ABC - The World Today) and it was not a report that the majority of the Committee concurred with. If the original wording was unsatisfactory to you, please suggest an alternative that captures the origin of the dissenting report (without reductio ad absurdum to imply that the Committee as a whole agreed with the dissenting report). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The dissent you mention is over whether the PM misled the public or not. No mention is made of the previous history of child-hurling etc. In fact, the Senate committee did not dispute this history, and anyway, we may source the incidents elsewhere. Please explain why you want this article to cast doubt on facts which nobody disputes. --Pete 05:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
No, the "dissenting" mentioned is the descriptor used in reportage about the "dissenting minority report written by Government members". Try Googling Australian sites for keywords "dissent children overboard report government" and you'll see a number of news sources that use this descriptor. It is ordinary parliamentary franca lingua. There is nothing unusual about a minority report from Parliamentary committee being called a "dissenting" report. As a former political journalist (per your userpage), you would surely be aware of that. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point made earlier, you were blocked for edit-warring on David Hicks, not this article. I'm sorry I gave the wrong impression and I should have checked which heavily-politicised debate caused the trouble. --Pete 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Casting aspersions about other editor's block histories is very easy but one-sided. So is deleting fair responses from your talkpage that seek to redress the tangential misrepresentations you make about editorial character of those you disagree with. Please recognise these have no relevance in a discussion about article content. Please suggest alternative wording as requested and acknowledge that media sources clearly identify the Government members' report as a minority dissenting report, which in fact it was. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't evade the point of all this.

  • The previous history of sabotage, self-harm, and yes, child-overboard-throwing is something that is vital to the context of the affair; the Government believed that children had been thrown overboard in this case and reported as much precisely because it had happened before and the pattern was clear.
  • This history may be sourced elsewhere. We don't need the Senate report, minority or otherwise.
  • In fact, the Senate committee did not dispute this history.
  • Why do you want our article to cast doubt on facts that are not in dispute?

If you could address this, rather than arguing over other things, it would be helpful. You will note that I am questioning this edit of yours. I have changed the previous wording from "The Senate inquiry found" to "The report also noted", which should satisfy your stated concerns, but instead unaccountably raises your stress level. --Pete 06:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not evading the point. You are, by making non sequitur arguments about matters which are not under dispute. I am making the concise point that you have removed detail which made clear who authored the dissenting report about the events on other boats (etc). That is an important part of the overall context. You keep removing it. Why? Please justify and obtain consensus or suggest better wording that more fully and accurately portrays the context of the dissenting report. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

And, as the originating editor, I ask you to please stop stuffing around with the section title. It's disruptive. The original title has been reference elsewhere and you keep breaking them. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please address my argument above, rather than laying smoke. --Pete 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They are not arguments, they are matters of no contest. Your repetition of them is hand-waving. To get back to relevance: please explain why the undisputed fact that the Government authored that report section, which was described by numerous media sources as a "dissenting report", should be excluded? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Because, as I've noted several times, without you apparently noticing, it casts doubt on facts that are not in dispute. Why do you want our article to do this? --Pete 08:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Identifying the author of a report casts doubt on the contents of the report? Can you rephrase that in terms of Wikipedia policy? Noting that omitting that detail creates the false impression that the dissenting report was endorsed the Committee as a whole. It wasn't, that's why it was widely reported as a "dissenting report". Why do you not acknowledge this? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play the fool like that. If we claim that the information was contained in a "dissenting minority report", then it casts doubt on the information. Likewise if we claim that it was authored by Government members (and I presume by that you mean coalition Senators), then it sounds as if it was spin. The simple fact is that the history of sabotage etc. was not disputed by the Committee. Nor is the Senate report the only source for such information. They didn't make it up out of thin air, as you might wish to imply. We are at liberty to use exactly the same sources, as listed in the report, or to find others, because there were certainly enough media reports listing the various incidents. Once again, I note that you evade my question, one which I would think goes to the heart of why you (or me or anyone else) might wish to edit an encyclopaedia. Why do you wish to cast doubt on information which is not in dispute? --Pete 17:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Your question is invalid because it is falsely premised. The material doubt here is over the substance and effect of your edit. My edits simply stated a widely reported and contextually relevant fact. It is a relevant fact that Government members sought the inclusions, in the broader Committee report, of a section that they alone wrote and endorsed. That is the purpose and nature of a dissenting minority report in a Parliamentary committee. Yet you edit that fact out (while strangely leaving alone similar attributions of other specific actions by Government members in questioning of Mike Scrafton). Your idiosyncratic non-policy-based "justifications" that have followed continue to ignore the terminology used in widespread media reportage, the franca lingua of parliament in referring to such reports as "dissenting", and the point that it matters not whether we attribute the dissenting report as "government-authored" or to "coalition senators" but that it is attributed. The Committee did not make the findings contained in the dissenting minority report; the dissenting minority made the findings in the dissenting minority report. The fact cannot be stated any clearer.
Cherry-picking facts is unencyclopedic. Please read WP:CENSOR and then explain why you support censoring fact of the dissenting report's authorship? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It is your edit that needs explanation, not my reversion of it. --Pete 18:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please don't play the fool like that. I have explained my edit, above. What needs answering here is which edit is best for the article?: one which deletes relevant factual information (ie. yours) or one which includes relevant factual information (mine). --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 01:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
More waffling, more evasion, no answer to my question "Why did you attempt to cast doubt on information which is not in dispute?". If you think that the addition of your own personal political spin is good for Wikipaedia, you don't understand what we are doing here. --Pete 02:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You are an odd fellow. The question has been answered. You are wrong. I did not spin anything. I stated a fact widely reported by the media. Why are you (or should I say, the royal 'we') censoring it? And why do you keep editing Wiki date tags (as you did on David Hicks earlier today) -- it has no impact on how they are displayed (that's the point), or is it a tactic designed to labour those seeking to revert your preceding non-consensual edit? --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 05:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree then. Thanks for the pleasure. As for date formats, I suggest you read the discussion pages for WP:DATE, not to mention my talk page, and then log out and check how various formats appear. Most of our users do not have accounts - we're writing an encyclopaedia for the masses as a priority, let me remind you, rather than setting up an online community. --Pete 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream media referred to the report as "A dissenting report by Coalition Senators" so we should reflect what the mainstream media does. In fact, the vast majority of mainstream reports didn't cover it at all, as it wasn't part of the main report. --Lester2 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. State exact context. A "dissenting report" should be reported as such. If it seems to invalidate the information therein then the information therein has to be considered potentially invalid. Pete appears to be pushing an agenda more vigorously than is useful to the article. Readers make up their own minds as to truth: it is not up to writers to edit contexts so as 'not to confuse the reader'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There being four editors (Filipio, myself, Lester2 & Jp adelaide) in favour of stating the Government members' minority dissenting report for what it is, consistent with reportage of it, consensus seems to be present. The phrase has been edited accordingly. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think that Wikipedia is a democracy? You are again attempting to cast doubt on facts that are not in dispute. This is not a good thing for our encyclopaedia, and your continued efforts to push this are disruptive. --Pete 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If I find that "minority report" garbage inserted again, I'm going to do more than just revert it. There is NO consensus for it. --Pete 17:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of references

Pete -- in his Edit Summary for his last revert of this phrasing, Prester John asked for a reference. That suggests a 5th editor who supports sourced accurate qualifiers. I provided one. What is POV about that? Qualifying existing facts neutrally within the article according to reliable sources is unremarkable, really. You seem to be arguing information should be excluded on the basis of what you presume my motives are, not on the basis of content, reliable sources and fact. You may not like the fact of the composition of the two Senate Comittees, or the nature of the reports they compiled, but your personal displeasure does not excuse censorship. Consider that implying these Committees, as a whole, found (agreed with) everything in their respective report mischaracterises the reports, the majority view, and the minority view of those Committees. That's neither NPOV, nor intellectually rigorous, nor encyclopedic. Consider that it is wrong to write these facts in a way that implies the minority view considered the majority view to be valid when they most certainly did not (or vice-versa). It does not do justice to the respective viewpoints and those Committees as a whole. Please think about this, avoid deleting references and avoid unnecessary disruptive reversions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Brendan please try to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Throwing around terms like "censorship" and "disruptive" is not helpful or productive. Please do not engage in your original research of what you believe the makeup of the committee to be. Find a reference for the terms "minority" and "dissenting". Repeatedly re inserting these terms is disruptive. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Censorship and disruptive describe the situation accurately. Terms should be used appropriate to their context, that's the whole point we're having this discussion. Once again, you belatedly join the discussion (ie. after unjustified reversion of content and deleting references, ones that he previously insisted be provided no less). This is getting habitual and remains disruptive. So is your pretense of claiming facts (whose references you just deleted) are unreferenced thus "justifying" removal of those facts. Prester, you asked for a reference and I gave you one: Liberal senators slam children overboard inquiry (Cynthia Banham, SMH, 2002-10-24). What's the go? The money quote:

Government senators have labelled the inquiry into the children overboard affair an "undignified sideshow" in politics and said the committee's majority report was a document of no forensic standing. In a dissenting report, Liberal senators George Brandis, Brett Mason and Alan Ferguson said the inquiry was driven by a "misplaced sense of self-righteous outrage [felt] by the Australian Labor Party at its defeat in the 2001 federal elections".

--Brendan [ contribs ] 03:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tangents

Your history of misrepresenting facts and misleading edit summaries have dwindled your credibility. Since you reverted many many times with no explanation, I have to wonder why you would not point out the reference before? Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

See the Edit Summaries used & look at the diffs. It's all there on the record, I clearly alerted participants to the addition of the reference, after which you continued reverting. Not everyone uses unrepresentative Edit Summaries like you, Prester. If you had read my Edit Summaries and look at the diffs, your excessive request to be personally notified on a talkpage somewhere would be rendered totally unnecessary. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Brendan, we've been through this before. You are unwilling or unable to explain why you want our article on this affair to cast doubt on facts that are not in dispute, namely the previous history of self-harm, sabotage and throwing children overboard. You don't have consensus for your edit, yet you keep on inserting it. Maybe you think I won't notice, maybe you hope to wear me down, maybe you are just trying to needle me. What I think is that your behaviour is disruptive and it should be the focus of further attention from wikimanagement. --Pete 04:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

An anon IP address with no previous edit history has suddenly appeared to save Brendan from 3RR. You don't often get unknown editors bold enough to make a big edit as their very first action on Wikipedia! --Pete 22:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

'Skyring(Pete)', your own edit waring, tag-teaming with User:Prester John is hardly good behaviour. Don't make public announcements about others' edit waring when you are indulging in edit waring yourself.--Lester 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Reverting text that has repeatedly failed to gain consensus is not in the same league as inserting that text, I suggest. I also note another anon IP address, no previous etc. has made exactly the same edit. Looks like a pattern of behaviour to me. --Pete 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia, Peter. It's a principle rule, remember. You are of course free to speculate, a freedom of which I note you have certainly availed yourself in regards to me ever since I started contributing to Wikipedia. It's pretty poor form to attack editors, let alone on talkpages. For one, it leaves you open to criticisms of hypocrisy: remembering your last allegation of sockpuppetry against me, Lester & another editor was embarrassingly incorrect, for which you, a serial sockpuppeteer who was once blocked for over a year by Jimbo Wales himself, obstinately never apologised. Indeed, speculation is your overweening tendency, so editors should expect no less. That doesn't distract, however, from the fact that you are the ONLY editor rejecting the widespread terminology used to describe the minority of government senators who authored two dissenting reports for two successive inquiries. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that there is no consensus for your edits. Your ad-hominem comments do you no credit. --Pete 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What a funny man. This entire lengthy talkpage topic is a testament to the simple fact that, apart from half-hearted agreement from your tag-team buddy Prester John, no other editors here have expressed agreement with your idiosyncratic position on this (and 5 or so have disagreed with you). Moreover, you keep reverting not just the part about the dissenting minority report but, without explanation, REFERENCES and COPYEDITS. You are being disruptive and your actions lack consensus, not the other way around. --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of competing reports

The question of whether the cited source [4] is a dissenting minority report is open-and-shut. No additional citation is needed; the report makes its own minority, dissenting status clear. "neither the Inquiry, nor the Majority Report, have had anything to do with the “children overboard” incident...the extraordinary language of the Majority Report is considered...the peculiarly insidious intellectual dishonesty which corrupts the Majority Report is particularly manifest...", etc - this is in the first four paragraphs of the Preamble'. The second report is signed by three members, the committe comprised eight ([5]).

Now, this doesn't excuse whatever edit-warring and tomfoolery have occured, but come on people, the argument that this is not a dissenting minority report, or that the claim that it's a dissenting minority lacks citations, holds about as much water as your typical SIEV. <eleland/talkedits> 23:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Err, nobody here is disputing any of the above. The point I make is that the previous history of sabotage etc. is not under dispute, and labelling it as belonging to a dissenting minority report suggests it is. The dissent within the report(s) actually lies in the conclusions drawn, and the manner of arriving at them, and proceeds along unsurprising party political lines. So far as I can see, the evidence from Defence Force personnel concerning other incidents was accepted by all Senators. If there be any dissent in this matter it is that the non-Government members chose not to list the events within their report, and the Government members did.
In fact, it would be helpful and informative if our article focussed on the actual nature of the dissent within the report(s), but Brendan prefers not to dwell on this, instead strongly implying that dissent rested elsewhere - on evidence that was not actually disputed. It would be very wrong of Wikipedia to give an untrue impression. But how deliciously ironic! --Pete 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Pete, what you have said above (that this particular issue was not addressed in the majority report therefore it was unanimously accepted) is the very definition of original research. Please provide a source which says: "Senate inquiry found" in relation to the above mentioned topics, that a minority report mentions it and that part of the minority report is not addressed in the majority finding does not mean that the finding of the minority report is adopted as the finding of the inquiry. If you cannot find a direct source to say that this was a finding of the senate inquiry than your addition of it should either be reverted back to saying it is a minority opinion or the whole reference to it should be completely removed. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 05:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Suggest you read the evidence transcripts. There's our source. None of the committee members disputed the evidence given about other incidents on other boats. Where, I ask you, is the dissent? You seem, like Brendan, to be implying that there was dispute and dissension on this point. There wasn't. Let's stick to the facts, not implications and imaginings. This is an encyclopaedia, not a political tract. --Pete 05:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
One cannot make a finding by not mentioning it. It's acceptable to say that a dissenting minority found X, and if and only if a reliable majority of sources says so, note that the majority did not dispute this allegation. It's not acceptable to state on our own authority that the majority did not dispute this allegation, because this is original synthesis from primary sources. There are a variety of reasons why the majority might not have disputed it, quite apart from the explanation which is being offered. The way to "stick to the facts" is to stick to what reliable, published sources conclude. If there is a clear majority view in such sources, we write the article to that view and note significant dissenting views fairly. If there's no clear majority view, we write to the controversy. The shorthand is WP:NPOV, and it's important. <eleland/talkedits> 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
One cannot make a finding by not mentioning it. Indeed. Show me the dissent within the report about the history of sabotage, self-harm and child-tossing. It's not there, and we should not give the impression that it is. --Pete 21:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty interpreting that comment. It's inappropriate to state that the committee found X based on the fact that a dissenting minority within the committee found X and the majority report did not contradict them. <eleland/talkedits> 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a better alternative wording to "The report also noted", then please put it forward. My point is that the previous history of sabotage etc. is not in doubt, being drawn from testimony that was not disputed by any committee member. Labelling it as "a dissenting report" implies doubt where none exists. As noted, I am happy for the majority/minority composition of the committee and the actual areas of dissent to be explored at further length.
I am also concerned about the use of IP sockpuppets to participate. I note that the last one falsely claimed a consensus. The use of underhanded tactics to edit a political article is something that should be pretty heavily stomped on. --Pete 21:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It should say something like, "According to Liberal senators who dissented from the report,". You say the previous history is not in doubt. We need reliable, published, independent sources which state this history, so that it is verifiable. It is simply not enough to read a primary source and draw editorial conclusions from the absence of a statement; that's original research. It appears by my limited survey that the Australian media, at least, did not treat these claims as authoritative; they treated it as a notable dissenting viewpoint. As should we. <eleland/talkedits> 23:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not following you here. Are you saying that the Senators who listened to the Defence Force personnel giving evidence are somehow more authoritative than the eyewitnesses themselves? The facts of the previous history are not in dispute and indeed, we do not need the report itself as a source, as we have the evidence transcripts. I have pointed this out above. --Pete 00:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It could be acceptable to summarize relevant eyewitness accounts, as long as they are attributed in-line to the eyewitness. So, not "children on other boats were thrown overboard," but "According to Australian Navy Lt. Cmdr Bob Roberts, children on other boats..." You keep saying the facts are not in dispute, but you haven't provided any way to verify this. <eleland/talkedits> 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to, though I'd be interested in seeing how you would propose verification. My preferred wording is "The report also noted..." This doesn't make any claim beyond the factual. If you (or anybody else) wants to state or imply dispute or dissent, then it is up to you to find evidence of same. --Pete 01:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, we do need to verify information for inclusion on Wikipedia. Especially when it's contentious information. And I believe we've already seen the evidence of dispute or dissension: Liberal senators slam children overboard inquiry, which was recently mentioned in an edit summary "Read the Cynthia Banham reference <ref name='SMH20021024_MinoritySenators'> that you and Pete keep DELETING. Stop being disruptive, tag-teaming, and mass unjustified reverts".
If you have a problem with that reference, I could also refer you to [6] [7] [8] [9], etc etc ad nauseum.
"The report" refers to the report, not to the appendix attached to it which savaged the report and its authors. For example, the UN Report on Jenin included a Palestinian annex which claimed that "the Israeli occupying forces waged a large-scale military assault against the Palestinian people, unprecedented in its scope and intensity", but that doesn't mean that the UN report concluded those things. <eleland/talkedits> 01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course we need to verify information for inclusion on WP. Nobody is disputing that. But, looking at my edits to the article, what needs verification? I don't see any need for me to verify a claim. Could you be specific, please?
Turning to your newspaper articles, I can't find any dispute or dissension with regard to the list of incidents on other SIEVs. Perhaps you could point out any specific reference I may have missed? Dissent on the conclusions of the report, certainly, but again, nobody is challenging that.
I take your point about an appendix not being the report, and maybe we can work on the wording there. Possibly, "An appendix to the report noted...". --Pete 03:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that the article read, "the minority report said X, but this was disputed". We're saying that the article should read, "the minority report said X", rather than presenting X as a conclusion of fact in Wikipedia-voice. It's not appropriate to present the views of three Senators as factual on the basis that we haven't found specific disputes of their views, or that our original research reading of primary sources seems to support those views. This discussion seems to be going in circles. <eleland/talkedits> 01:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly a more accurate description of the facts. "Minority" and "dissenting" is just parroting the POV of some Fairfax journalist, something wikipedia needs to avoid. Prester John -(Talk to the Hand) 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me, but that position is untenable. Every citation thus provided, including The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, and the ABC all describe this as a dissenting report produced by the minority. It isn't enough to keep saying what you think over and over again. You need to examine what the sources say, because Wikipedia works from sources and not from original research. <eleland/talkedits> 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to mention the report as a source. We have the unchallenged evidence of the eyewitnesses, and from that we can create our own list from the raw sources which turns out to be, surprise, surprise, exactly the same as the list contained in the appendix to the minority report. That should solve the impasse neatly: we don't give the list the apparent blessing of the entire committee, neither do we cast doubt on it. --Pete 01:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the Children Overboard Affair article, not a original research article on the actions of SIEV passengers. In accordance with the rightful article context, we must attribute relevant views to their respective authors, something your spectacular hand-waving efforts still have not acknowledged nor diminished. You do not have consensus for your edits. Why won't you acknowledge the growing list of editors who disagree with your position above, let alone their simple indisputable basis for doing so? --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh lookie. The Table of Contents to the first Senate Inquiry is divided into two distinct parts: Majority Report and Government Members Report. See the Preamble to the latter for the true context that Skyring/Pete is astonishingly arguing should not be attributed in this article. The findings about other SIEVs were not formally found by the Committee as a whole and moreover were not appendixed to the Majority Report at all. To reword the article in a way that suggests otherwise is POV-pushing and censorship. The original wording with intact reference has been reinstated. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed it. We don't need the report - the original source is just fine. That's the uncontested, undisputed eyewitness evidence. Once again, may I ask you to explain why you want our article to cast doubt on matters not in dispute? Why is this such a difficult question to answer? --Pete 18:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that these reports are "uncontested" or "undisputed". Do you mean that nobody, nowhere, has ever contested them (how do you know?) Or do you mean that the Children Overboard report never questions or disputes them? If it's the second one, you need to realize that the report was not designed to address every single, possible objection or counter-claim which might subsequently be made.
I think there are some valid points on both sides here, and the competing versions both have something to offer. However, on the specific issue being discussed here, it's simply not appropriate to state that the opposition senators "noted that passengers aboard other SIEVs had threatened children, sabotaged their own vessels, committed self-harm and ... thrown a child overboard". "Noted" means that the facts were established and not in doubt. "Stated", "alleged", or best of all "said" would be appropriate. Alternatively, one could directly cite the witness testimony, but Wikipedia is not a moot court and we are not qualified to judge the accuracy of testimony. Therefore, the most we could possibly say is, "according to the testimony of Lt. Cmdr Random before the commitee, passengers aboard another SIEV...", but then all we are doing is effectively citing the dissenting Senators, once removed. I don't think that's in line with policy.
I'd also like to note that if we're citing a source, we have to report what that source actually says. For instance, the last version reverted to says that, "it remains uncertain whether sabotage caused SIEV 4 to sink[5]". But source [5] says, "the Adelaide was shadowing the stricken Olong. Its engines had failed - almost certainly sabotaged, although this has never been established ... As Canberra tried to make up its mind what to do with these people, Banks aimlessly towed them round the Indian Ocean. Under the strain of towing, the little boat was breaking up. ... For 24 hours this dangerous operation continued as the Olong sank slowly in the water. Finally, Banks was forced to stop towing. The boat was going down."
In other words, there's no question of the boat being sabotaged, unless we're saying that the Canberra sabotaged it. The engines were allegedly sabotaged, and then the boat sank under the strain of being towed in circles. Now, some editors may think this amounts to sinking their own boat, but their opinions cannot be allowed to creep into Wikipedia in this manner. Please be more careful. <eleland/talkedits> 21:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to claim doubt or dissent, then the onus is on you to support your claim. Looking at the report(s) and the transcripts of proceedings, I cannot find any dispute over the contents of eyewitness evidence given by Defence Force personnel. We might label the minority report dissenting, but there is no evidence that the non-Government Senators disputed the history of events. At least, none that I can find, but if you can find any such dissent or dispute, then please be so good as to point it out.
As for the sabotage, your logic looks good. However, it is difficult to know which edits are good and which are not when a raft of them are made in succession, presumably to lay a smokescreen for the consensus-less "minority report" guff being snuck in. I'm not going to AGF when such dubious tactics are used. --Pete 00:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Difficult? You're kidding. This article is tiny and after your initial mass reverts (removing content, references and copyedits), I performed the edits separately so that distinct different edits could be separately undone without affecting others. And what did you do? Reverted the whole lot anyway. So don't trot out that guff that it's "difficult". It couldn't have been made easier for you, the minority dissenter on here, but still you keep filibustering and mass reverting. Please stop hand-waving and imputing motives of editors in order to censor the black-and-white published fact that the first Government Member Report (like the second, the reference and description of which as "minority report" you strangely you leave untouched) was identified by the press and its authors as a dissenting report, and the simple reality of the composition of that authorship in respect of the composition of the wider committee made it a "minority" report. Please stop misrepresenting the views of that minority by suggesting that they agreed with the findings of the majority, and vice-versa. Please stop disruptively removing REFERENCES, QUOTES, FACTS and COPYEDITS without justification. This has been brought to your attention several times and yet you persist. Please stop. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Deletion of government criticism

Not long after the article was unprotected, a very large section of the article was deleted here without any explanation. The edit seems to have deleted a statement that the government was criticised over the children overboard affair. It is undeniable that the Australian government received huge criticism over it. It was clearly referenced. So what's the justification for deletion? I ask all editors to discuss it on the talk page before deleting sections of the article, as otherwise it becomes the first step in an edit war. Thanks, --Lester 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prester John : Unfounded reverts & deleting information/references

Prester John, please articulate what your specific reasons are for your recent reverts (here, here & here). Your edit summaries do not adequately explaing why you have done this. Your reverts have deleted (among other things) a reference/link to the Senate Inquiry (ie. a critical part of the article), yet you keep the link to the minority dissent report, introducing article bias. Please do not remove specific relevant detail without apparent cause. Please engage in talkpage discussion before making further reverts. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

A revert should only be used to correct extreme examples of vandalism and libel. It should never be used to delete cited content. I hope all editors follow this courtesy. --Lester2 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The page has been protected for 3 days so that the participants in the dispute can try to reach consensus on the talk page. Please take this opportunity to do so. MastCell Talk 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This article has been protected for 48 hours, please take this time to discuss any further changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)