Portal talk:New Zealand/News
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Am I correct?
Regarding the entry April 7: Following the acquittal of three men in the Louise Nicholas rape trial, pamphlets and emails about the defendants are spread widely in defiance of court suppression orders., should we not say the pamphlets/emails were about only two of the defendants, and also should we make it clear they breached suppression orders from a previous court case? Moriori 06:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I thought we should be fairly non-specific. The important thing about this story is the widespread flouting of a suppression order; the actual details of the case are off limits.-gadfium 08:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia should always be (1) factual, and (2) as specific as possible to prevent ambiguity. On the first point the pamphlets/emails named two defendants, not "the defendants" (there were three). On the second point "defiance of court suppression orders" suggests the suppression orders were made in the Louise Nicholas trial. They weren't. Some specific claims in the emails/pamphlets were not and could not be presented at the Nicholas trial because they were subject to suppression orders from an entirely different court case. I have amended it accordingly. Cheers. Moriori 10:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Have you been following this case? :) Brian | (Talk) 10:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not in situ, but yes. Moriori 10:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed up the articles New Zealand Police and Current events in Australia and New Zealand with Moriori's changes.-gadfium 19:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brash
Surely this should be updated to include Brash's alleged affair, and also the controversy about Helen Clark's husband?
- I hate to have such scuttlebutt in an encyclopedia, but these events have been making headlines for several days, so I'll write something up shortly.-gadfium 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
