Talk:Scott Rush
Scott Rush was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Australia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Untitled
the picture is the same for scott rush and for Michael Czugaj. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.8.164 (talk • contribs)
- I used Rush's image to illustrate the article as both Czugaj and Rush were close friends from Brisbane before arrest. I've since removed it. -- Longhair 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A crime
Criminals or non-criminals, it is an act against innate human divinity to hand over English speakers to feudal-language nations’ officialdom. It can erode the core of human dignity, that is the rightful possession of all human beings. --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually no one handed over anyone. Scott Rush and the other Bali Nine choose to go to another country of their own free will, choose to commit a crime there which they knew full well was a crime (whether they knew the possible sentence is in dispute) and were caught. It's true the AFP did inform the Indonesian police that they had information these people were going to commit a crime, but that's a far cry from handing 'English speakers to feudal-language nations officialdom' and such cooperation is the international norm and you can rest assured the Australian or UK government and people would be rather pissed if the Indonesian authorities don't inform the Australian or UK government or police when they have information people are going to commit crimes in Australia or the UK. Note that unless these people had commited crimes in Australia (which some of them apparently had, although it would likely have been difficult to prove), there is no way the Australian authorities could have definitely prevented them visiting Indonesia, to detain them without due cause would clearly be a violation of their rights, at best they could have told them they were under surveilance in which case they probably wouldn't have willingly visited Indonesia, but we will never know, these people were clearly pretty stupid to be committing such crimes in the first place. Doing that would have made it difficult for anyone to pursue these people some of who had evidentally already commited criminal acts in Indonesia and Australia. (Waiting for them to arrive back in Australia would have meant not informing the Indonesia police about people who were going to commit criminal acts in Indonesia, and would have been very controversial if these people had done anything else, e.g. harmed people during the commission of their crimes.) And note that several criminals in Indonesia and Australia have been apprehended or in one case killed as a result of this case, and it's entirely possible none of this would have happened were it not for the cooperation between authorities and apprehension and information garned from these criminals. And note we also don't know what would have happened if these AFP hadn't done anything, it's possible the Indonesian authorities would have uncovered their criminal actions anyway. P.S. It's not clear to me if all of the Bali Nine has English as their first language. Would it be acceptable for these people to be handed over to feudal-language nations officialdom? For that matter, do you mean to say you think it would be fine to actually hand them over to say the Singaporean authorities even if they would face the death penalty given that English is an official and widely used language there, it's only wrong to hand them over to the Indonesian authorites since they speak a 'feudal language'? Nil Einne (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Scott Rush/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Keithbob (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute
|
Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
I could go on section by section, but I think you get the idea. | |
1b. it complies with the list incorporation .
|
see above | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline .
|
Sources are nicely formatted | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Would prefer to evaluate the sources once the article has been reorganized and rewritten. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | It is missing information about the subjects life ie , his youth, his education, his work experience etc. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Too much detail in the lead and a lot of off topic information (see prose section above) | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | At present with all the undue weight and off topic info, I would say that it is somewhat non-neutral although this is a purely unintentional consequence of the current arrangement of the material. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as audio :
| ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions .
|
||
7. Overall assessment. | Citations are nicely formatted and editors have accumulated a variety of sources but overall this article needs a lot of work. It should be reduced to about half the current size and the prose needs to be rewritten to conform with standard Wikipedia encyclopedic tone, phrasing and organization as outlined above. Off topic info needs to be removed and the article needs to be re-balanced and the material presented in the context of a person's life instead of a news event. At this time I must fail the article in its bid for GA status. |