Talk:National Sorry Day
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
National Sorry Day 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||
| This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia. | |||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Wording
The wording here is ambiguous: "remains opposed to the concept". Which concept? The idea of the day, or the idea of removing the children? There are two antithetical ways of reading this sentence. Greyscale 15:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- This article is terrible.. Does someone want to rewrite it from a sensible and unbiased perspective?--Nirvana- 11:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Certainly not NPOV
I've added a POV tag to this article. I'll try to re-write if I can get some time (yeah, right!) but the following passage is my main bone of contention, and is clearly not NPOV:
"In my opinion, the worst thing that has been done to aboriginal people was taking their children away from them and bringing them up in a way that the Australian government thought was right."
Justin
- I have removed much of the text added since April, including the offending paragraph. I have removed the tag as I assume it no longer breaches NPOV, if it still does please let me know. Much of the text aded belongs in the article on the Stolen Generation, not in this article which should focus on the day itself.--Golden Wattle talk 21:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Passive voice needs changing
I consulted this page to find out who started National Sorry Day, and when, and I'm puzzled by the repeated use of the passive voice, especially since the author notes that NSD is "not an official holiday." That's good to know, but if it's not an official holiday, how did it come to be? Encyclopedic style doesn't have to be passive, and active-voice with a clear subject would really enhance the information. Knorlock (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
