Talk:Prosecution of Daniel Duggan

Removal of a significant POV

@Googleguy007: Hi, I just saw that you are objecting to the well-cited point of view that Duggan has not yet been found guilty in court and has no criminal history anywhere in the globe. What purpose do your reverts serve? The text's NPOV diminishes when a key POV is removed, especially in BLP articles. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I am removing the content for NPOV, adding "they have not proven it in a court of law" after "he was accused" serves no informative purpose (the phrase "accused" instead of "convicted" carries all the information needed there). Information about him not having been arrested previously may be relevant elsewhere, but putting it directly after his prisoner status serves only to attempt to cast doubt on the validity of that in wiki-voice. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Umm...I believe your removals are against BLP cautions. All what you removed were backed by reliable sources. For instance: "Despite never having been convicted of a crime in any country, Duggan has been classified as an Extreme High Risk Restricted (EHRR) and Protection Non-Association (PRNA) prisoner. He is currently being held in a two-metre-by-four-metre cell at Silverwater in Sydney’s west."[1] There should be a stronger motivation than merely 'casting doubt'. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Attempting to cast doubt on his status in wikivoice is an NPOV violation. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello again, I have added 'reportedly' to the sentence. There's no wikivoice. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Googleguy007: I was a bit hopeless when seeing the change was just reverted by you in less than two hours. Your revert was not a constructive move. My change was quit in line with WP:VOICE since it was fully supported by a reliable source and featured required attributions. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It was constructive as it removed your NPOV phrasing. It’s fine to say that he had not been arrested previously, but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly. Please stop edit warring to include your changes Googleguy007 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Once again, it is the Guardian source[2] that is "putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner", NOT me. I have already provided you with the full quotation from the source and your ignoring of that notification is some kind of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Do you have any objections with the wording of the Guardian source? --Mhhossein ^talk 06:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I dont have any issues with the wording of the guardian themselves, as they are an outside source, and I see no issues with an outside source making accusatory implications in its textual voice. However transcribing that text to wikipedia would be improper, as it makes an accusatory implication in wikipedias textual voice, which violates NPOV. It would be fine to say (with sources) that "the australian government has been criticised by [xyz] for treating duggan as a high risk prisoner despite the fact that he has never been convicted of a crime before", but not to imply criticism. It would also be fine to include the fact that he has never been arrested before in a natural place in the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)A

Your suggestion is an WP:Original Research. We can not really say that the Guardian source is "criticizing" the Australian government. Again; "...but putting it in the same sentence as him being a high profile prisoner is blatantly implying that he is being treated unfairly" is not a substantiated objection here since the exact wording of the source is against what your comments try to imply. An now, your new suggestion goes against OR. On the contrary, my edit, which you swiftly reverted, is portraying the things as it is while making proper attributions by stating "reportedly". --Mhhossein ^talk 16:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Your edit, which I swiftly reverted, made an NPOV implication in wikivoice. It is not OR to understand the basics of how the english language works, words can imply things without explicitly stating them, the sentence implies that he should not have the prisoner status he does, which should not be stated in wikivoice. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not being stated in wikivoice due to "reportedly" in the sentence. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Your comments are really stonewalling the consensus building process; You said "words can imply things without explicitly stating them". It shows you need to review the WP:OR once again more accurately. Per WP:OR "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research." Also it reads "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." --Mhhossein ^talk 07:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Googleguy007: Your revert, without TP discussion, was a clear edit war. The implication you referred to here in your edit summary is fully supported by the Guardian source and my edit is in line with the Guardian sourcing. The Guardian source says "Despite never having been convicted of a crime in any country, Duggan has been classified as an Extreme High Risk Restricted (EHRR) and Protection Non-Association (PRNA) prisoner. He is currently being held in a two-metre-by-four-metre cell at Silverwater in Sydney’s west" and what I added to the text fully portrays the same thing while featuring the required attributions to the Guardian. You have received two edit war templates from admins and unfortunately still tend to edit war here. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Your revert of me constitutes edit warring by your definition then. You are blatantly POV pushing. I am creating an RFC Googleguy007 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (An NPOV dispute involving the implications of a certain phrasing):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Prosecution of Daniel Duggan and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The current sentence in the article—"Daniel Duggan has been categorized as an Extreme High-Risk Restricted (EHRR) and Protection Non-Association (PRNA) prisoner, although according to the Guardian he has never been convicted of a crime anywhere in the world"—appears to balance Googleguy007's concerns with Mhhossein's interest in indicating that Duggan's EHRR/PRNA status appears to be out of the ordinary. Note that the Guardian article does not make clear why not having been previously convicted of a crime is relevant to EHRR/PRNA status, and perhaps one of you could find a reliable source (preferably from a reputable law review) that explains the usual criteria for EHRR/PRNA. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)