Talk:David Adeang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	Micronesia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Micronesia, which collaborates on articles related to Micronesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related work groups (nations): Nauru work group Related work groups (territories):

[edit] POV?

The last section looks as if it's been written with a pro-Adeang POV. Namely:

• "the Administration's ministers continued to exercise executive powers without the support of Parliament". Oh, really? What factual basis is there for this assertion? From what I gather, the Stephen administration still has a parliamentary majority, and therefore enjoys the support of Parliament. What it lacks is the support of the Opposition (which is hardly surprising), and of the Speaker, who is aligned with the Opposition.
• "sometimes an indicator of whether a Parliamentary system has survived a coup d'état". That's blatantly POV. A personal comment stemming from an unsupported and probably erroneous assertion.
• "Adeang was thus increasingly emerging as a somewhat traditional figure identified with asserting the prerogatives of a sovereign parliament worthy of the name, along the Westminster model, in the face of attempts to circumvent Parliament." Very heavily POV. This seems simply to be a personal comment by a user who supports Adeang. As preiously mentioned, the Stephen administration has a parliamentary majority, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Adeang cannot circumvent the Constitution! User's personal, derogatory and unsupported interpretation of Stephen's motivations.
• "For its part, the government of Marcus Stephen strongly welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling: whether or not for ideological and principled reasons also, it was seen as ensuring the immediate survival of the Administration." Obvious and blatant POV.

I'm contacting the user who wrote this, so that the POV problem can be fixed. I'll give it a few days before fixing it myself if it's not done. Aridd (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Actually, the government has lost its majority and since the police commissioner was acting as if the police were no longer bound by the standing orders of parliament and thus the rule of parliamentary law, this is the basis for David Adeang's assertion, good, bad or inddiferent, that a coup had taken place. This is the sourcing article:

[[[1]] Radio New Zealand International, March 31, 2008 faroukfarouk

Thanks, but yes, I know what Adeang has said. As for the government's majority, my understanding is that Stephen has the support of 9 MPs out of 18, thus resulting in a deadlocked parliament (and giving Adeang grounds to call for fresh elections, indeed). My concern is with the phrasing of this article, and with the inclusion of personal comments and interpretations, which seem to hint very strongly at a pro-Adeang POV. Aridd (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks for your work! Aridd (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)