Talk:Julian Moti
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Melanesia, which collaborates on articles related to Melanesia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
Julian Moti 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 is supported by WikiProject Australian law. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Resource
The Age has a good synopsis of events to date. I don't have time to update the article with this useful info for now. The URL is:
Robert Brockway 18:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Bullying behaviour of the Australian government? Can we make this a bit more NPOV, please?--ManicParroT 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed all blatant violations of WP:NPOV and have requested cites for contentious statements.--cj | talk 18:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
This is still not NPOV. It reads more like an essay defending Moti over the legal controversies of the Vanuatu case, rather than a biographical article or stub. I'd tag this article as "Neutrality Disputed" if I knew how.--203.59.253.81 14:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree - definately still not NPOV - obviously written by a Songavare/Moti ally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.153.98 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
- I've tagged this as NPOV, until it gets cleaned up.Xlh 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted the section referring to the article's statements about the trial in Vanuatu, as it is irrelevant to the current controversy insofar as Moti holds Australian citizenship. Thus any trial he may have undergone according to Vanuatu is irrelevant and unrelated to the controversy of there being a case or not against him according to Australian Law. Additionally, it is not up to contributors of Wikipedia to determine what is extraordinary and what it is not. This is meant to be encyclopedic source of information, not an editorial.Xlh 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I note that the deleted content has re-appeared, and had initially thought it was done so without any kind of note as to why the author of this content thinks it should be included. I am going to again clean this article up. Malasai, as per my message, if you do feel the need to reinsert the material about the Vanuatu trial that's fine, but you'll need to do so in adherence with Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV and referencing. If this doesn't occur and you persist in editorializing, I'll assume it's vandalism, and I'll arrange to have this article locked. If you want to give the world your opinions, I respectfully suggest you start a blog Xlh 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've also cleaned up the structure of the article so it's a little easier to read and in it's current form, I believe the NPOV and unreferenced tags can be removed. Since this is a biographical article, we may wish to add more to Moti's personal vitae section, as currently this is more of an article about the controversy, rather than an article about Moti itself... Xlh 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Since the author of this article has made it clear that he intends to keep pushing a BS bias agenda rather than construct a neutral article, I am going to submit a request that this article be locked to prevent further vandalism from him. Xlh 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- The info on the Vanuatu trial needs to go back ASAP. This is a biographical article about Moti and if he has already undergone a trial for these charges then this needs to be mentioned. As the Solomon Islands claim that the Australian trial is unfair because of Vanuatu trial, this needs to be mentioned as well ([1]). If a reliable source mentions that from an Australian legal POV the Vanuatu trial is irrelevant then we should mention that as well Nil Einne 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed it myself as it was easier to word then I had considered Nil Einne 11:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- The info on the Vanuatu trial needs to go back ASAP. This is a biographical article about Moti and if he has already undergone a trial for these charges then this needs to be mentioned. As the Solomon Islands claim that the Australian trial is unfair because of Vanuatu trial, this needs to be mentioned as well ([1]). If a reliable source mentions that from an Australian legal POV the Vanuatu trial is irrelevant then we should mention that as well Nil Einne 11:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Since the author of this article has made it clear that he intends to keep pushing a BS bias agenda rather than construct a neutral article, I am going to submit a request that this article be locked to prevent further vandalism from him. Xlh 06:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've also cleaned up the structure of the article so it's a little easier to read and in it's current form, I believe the NPOV and unreferenced tags can be removed. Since this is a biographical article, we may wish to add more to Moti's personal vitae section, as currently this is more of an article about the controversy, rather than an article about Moti itself... Xlh 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The details of the case against Julian Moti are hardly irrelevant to the issue of his extradition to Australia to face charges; a fortiori the fact that he is an Australian citizen does not make the original matter in Vanuatu irrelevant; it is merely what gives the Australian courts jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the Australian international child sex offender legislation. And it is mischievous to describe the David Marr and Marian Wilkinson article in the Sydney Morning Herald which has been quoted (and removed several times) as a statement by "supporters" of Julian Moti. Marr and Wilkinson merely point out in disinterested journalistic fashion the weaknesses in the case against him; it verges on libel to describe this as being supportive of a person you apparently have already condemned as a paedophile. Moti has never been tried; he has addressed the question of whether he has a case to answer; it was that which the Vanuatu Court of Appeal determined had not been properly established and which it remitted back to a second magistrate to reconsider. (You appear to conflate the three Vanuatu hearings into one.) Marr and Wilkinson entirely leave it, as is proper in an impartial news item, for the reader to draw his or her own conclusions as to the implications – if any – of the Australian DPP going after Moti so energetically in the political circumstances of the matter. Or do you consider that any account of the Moti affair which does not condemn Moti and applaud the Australian DPP to be "supportive" of Moti? You might usefully take counsel from the truism of the criminal law that one is innocent until proven guilty, a matter which the Howard Government's minister of immigration and the DPP re-discovered, no doubt to the considerable cost of the public purse when the inevitable action for malicious prosecution and wrongful imprisonment is brought by Dr Mohamed Haneef. (And I hasten to assure you that this does not make me a "supporter" of Julian Moti either.) Masalai (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, you should elaborate on the bare statement that "(This is disputed, however, in evidence presented to a PNG Defence Force Board of Inquiry into Moti's departure for Papua New Guinea - see below.)" So it may well be: I have not read Mr Justice Gibbs et al.'s Defence Board of Inquiry Report; neither, clearly, have you or surely you would substantiate the allegation you make regarding evidence presented to the Board. Further, with the greatest of respect, are you entirely sure you are correctly applying the principle of "neutral point of view"? Masalai (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Masalai, who are you addressing in your statements? Nil Einne and Aridd were the last people to edit this article, and Aridd has not commented on this talk page - if you're referring to Nil, I'm not sure why you would mean this response to be directed at him/her since all Nil Einne did was to reinsert a reference to the Vanuatu findings (And the edit was a good one, reinserting the material *without* turning this article into an anti-government rant, which was the state I found this article in when I came across it in February. As to whether your reply is directed at me, again, I haven't *touched* the article since February, when (I would add) I attempted to work through the issue with you, only to have you ignore attempts at discussion and just revert versions of the article with no explanation or justification - so you're essentially a) barking up the wrong tree, and b) you've got very little credibility in terms of trying to take the moral high-ground here considering your previous behaviour, so with due respect to yourself, I'm effectively ignoring your comments as they have no relation to me, or anything I've done or said here or edited in the article. As it stands, the article as I currently look at it is factual, NPOV, and accurately describes the case, and the events since the affair started factually and in a balanced manner (Especially in comparison to the one-eyed rant it was beforehand). If you wish to add or edit anything further, please ensure NPOV guidelines are adhered to to a) avoid a revert war like last time, or b) being reported. Again, as it stands, I see no need to edit this article at this time. Xlh (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is something I'd like to raise as I have seen something in your edit that needs discussing, although I'm not going to edit anything yet... Masalai, do you think it's necessary to include Marr's quote that you've included? Wouldn't it be enough simply to put in that according to Marr, there is evidence to support Moti's version of events that was documented as part of the Vanuatu hearings? After all, this article is not the place to try, test and argue the evidence about Moti's case either way.. that is for courts. This is simply a biographical article. What do you think? Xlh (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since you ask, I think it now ought to be left to the courts of Australia and that unless and until Mr Moti is adjudged guilty of international sex crimes he should be considered innocent till proven guilty. Masalai (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad we agree there - the merits of the case really shouldn't be argued here, but in courts. This is simply a biographical article. I'm going to leave in the reference to Marr, but if it's ok with you I'm going to remove the direct quote, as the quote comes directly from the reference cited anyway. Hope that's ok by you. Xlh (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Masalai - I'm not being "naughty" and I don't have a problem - I thought we'd agreed to leave Marr's comments about the conflicting evidence there as a reference, not as a quote in the article. Maybe I misunderstood. If you want to leave it there, I guess it's not any different than bringing up the reference, so I'll leave it there and leave it up to others to decide on. :) Sorry for the confusion. 124.169.246.254 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Glad we agree there - the merits of the case really shouldn't be argued here, but in courts. This is simply a biographical article. I'm going to leave in the reference to Marr, but if it's ok with you I'm going to remove the direct quote, as the quote comes directly from the reference cited anyway. Hope that's ok by you. Xlh (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, since you ask, I think it now ought to be left to the courts of Australia and that unless and until Mr Moti is adjudged guilty of international sex crimes he should be considered innocent till proven guilty. Masalai (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there is something I'd like to raise as I have seen something in your edit that needs discussing, although I'm not going to edit anything yet... Masalai, do you think it's necessary to include Marr's quote that you've included? Wouldn't it be enough simply to put in that according to Marr, there is evidence to support Moti's version of events that was documented as part of the Vanuatu hearings? After all, this article is not the place to try, test and argue the evidence about Moti's case either way.. that is for courts. This is simply a biographical article. What do you think? Xlh (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Masalai, who are you addressing in your statements? Nil Einne and Aridd were the last people to edit this article, and Aridd has not commented on this talk page - if you're referring to Nil, I'm not sure why you would mean this response to be directed at him/her since all Nil Einne did was to reinsert a reference to the Vanuatu findings (And the edit was a good one, reinserting the material *without* turning this article into an anti-government rant, which was the state I found this article in when I came across it in February. As to whether your reply is directed at me, again, I haven't *touched* the article since February, when (I would add) I attempted to work through the issue with you, only to have you ignore attempts at discussion and just revert versions of the article with no explanation or justification - so you're essentially a) barking up the wrong tree, and b) you've got very little credibility in terms of trying to take the moral high-ground here considering your previous behaviour, so with due respect to yourself, I'm effectively ignoring your comments as they have no relation to me, or anything I've done or said here or edited in the article. As it stands, the article as I currently look at it is factual, NPOV, and accurately describes the case, and the events since the affair started factually and in a balanced manner (Especially in comparison to the one-eyed rant it was beforehand). If you wish to add or edit anything further, please ensure NPOV guidelines are adhered to to a) avoid a revert war like last time, or b) being reported. Again, as it stands, I see no need to edit this article at this time. Xlh (talk) 08:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 08:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing page?
There seems to be a problem editing this article. I added the following, but it's not showing.
==Situation in December 2007== In December 2007, the Solomon Islands' Prime Minister Sogavare was toppled in a [[vote of no confidence]], leaving Moti's fate uncertain. Indeed, it has been suggested that Sogavare's refusal to extradite Moti was the main cause of the Prime Minister's downfall [http://www.radiofiji.com.fj/fullstory.php?id=6577]. Opposition leader [[Fred Fono]] had promised in November to extradite Moti if he came to power [http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=906]. The ''[[Fiji Times]]'' suggests that Moti may now flee to [[Fiji]] [http://www.fijitimes.com.fj/story.aspx?id=76505]. Aridd (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reaction of extradition by former Solomons PM
The quote from the Solomons Times was referenced and quoted here in the article out of context. Sogavare was criticising both the RSIP and the AFP not just the AFP. This is a biographical article, not a forum for Aussie bashing. Keep your references in context, accurate and factual. Xlh (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The edit which you have reverted on the basis that it is "Aussie-bashing" was certainly not that, and if you look at the article, the previous editor's précis was clearly correct: the quotation is, 'The former Prime Minister also accused the occupying force of "the desire to control". Mr. Sogavare said "certain elements" of the local police force have succumbed to agendas of the occupying force." How can it be Aussie-bashing to describe Sogavere's words accurately? It is no secret that Sogavere did not want RAMSI in Solomon Islands or that he was not on good terms with the Australian government; to describe his statement that "the occupying force" had a "desire to control" meant that he accused both RAMSI and the local police of a desire to control is simply to misrepresent the contents of the news item. No doubt Sogavere is guilty of Aussie-bashing; those who quote him without editorialising are certainly not guilty of it. This further demonstrates the desirability of setting out direct quotation from Marr's article rather than summarising it, as you prefer. Masalai (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Masalai, This was actually Aridd's edit, so I wasn't directing those statements at you. In fact, I wasn't even directing them at anyone personally, although Aridd's had a word to me about the statement and I've apologised to him/her about it.
- The edit which you have reverted on the basis that it is "Aussie-bashing" was certainly not that, and if you look at the article, the previous editor's précis was clearly correct: the quotation is, 'The former Prime Minister also accused the occupying force of "the desire to control". Mr. Sogavare said "certain elements" of the local police force have succumbed to agendas of the occupying force." How can it be Aussie-bashing to describe Sogavere's words accurately? It is no secret that Sogavere did not want RAMSI in Solomon Islands or that he was not on good terms with the Australian government; to describe his statement that "the occupying force" had a "desire to control" meant that he accused both RAMSI and the local police of a desire to control is simply to misrepresent the contents of the news item. No doubt Sogavere is guilty of Aussie-bashing; those who quote him without editorialising are certainly not guilty of it. This further demonstrates the desirability of setting out direct quotation from Marr's article rather than summarising it, as you prefer. Masalai (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- In terms of this demonstrating anything, actually it demonstrates the hazards of quoting directly in articles. In this case, Aridd accidentally quoted Sogavare directly as saying that this was part of the Australian Federal Police's desire to control the SI through RAMSI. In fact, he actually hit out at both the AFP and the RSIP - not only was the RSIP part left out, but the quote was actually changed from what it says in the source, to something different here in the Wikipedia article. Pretty strange to say the least.
-
-
-
- In this case, it's been an honest mistake. But again, if anything this highlights the need to leave direct attribution and quotation in the hands of the SOURCE, and simply refer to the source in the article, allowing the reader to follow to the source for the direct quote as they see fit. This is precisely because by accident a news reference has been misquoted and this completely changed the context of what was being said *in this article* from an quote about him attacking his political opponents to an anti-RAMSI/anti-Australian POV. See how things can get misconstrued when quoting is double-handled? As editors we have a responsibility to ensure that mistakes like this are avoided. Anyone here can look at the quote Aridd put in the article, look at the actual quote on the Solomons Time's website, and see that they're different. For my part I've then an been pretty blatant and not very accommodating about Aridd's edit, which again I've apologised for to him/her. But I'm not sure I agree with you on the direct quote issue Masalai - I myself will stick to summarising in my edits as I feel it's safer. Of course, we all have our own editing style, and that's fine. Xlh (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] POV
I have posted the POV template on the article in the belief that there is a serious lack of balance between what might be regarded as sensationalist musings about the man's recent history, and the facts as outlined in public documents available in High Court in the Solomon Islands. Tony (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As well as POV, there are serious issues in the prose. Thus, I've posted a copy-edit tag at the top of the article. Tony (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
