Talk:Children Overboard affair

message: -can i suggest that the article is titled Children overboard affair rather than scandal, both for NPOV issues, and because this is the more common title.- DONE The bellman 05:33, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. Ambi 06:04, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  DONE: end of topic (check! tic! whatever!)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 14:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: * Children overboard to dominate campaign (September 1, 2004). The Age
* Arlington, Kim. (August 24, 2004) Children overboard the most despicable of lies: Hawke. The Age.
* Truth overboard: lies, damned lies and politics
* McGrath, Catherine (16 August, 2004). Mike Scrafton speaks live about children overboard affair. Transcript from The World Today (ABC Radio).
* Yaxley, Louise (August 28, 2004). Children overboard affair casts shadow on election campaign. Transcript from AM (ABC Radio).
* Bowden, Rich (August 23, 2004). Australian PM Accused of Misleading Public, 'Children Overboard' Scandal Resurfaces. World Press Review.
* Walters, Patrick (August 16, 2004). Howard was told the truth. The Australian.
* Walters, Patrick (August 28, 2004). General throws PM overboard. The Australian.
* "Children Overboard" Affair — Question without notice (February 19, 2004). 
** Downer's very interesting answer to the question: "Can the minister confirm that his department was represented on the people-smuggling task force in October and November last year? When was either the minister or his office first informed of any doubts as to the government's claim that children had been thrown overboard?" Answer was, "As for the answer to the question in relation to the `children overboard' incident, my department had no particular information on that issue at all. The issue is not the responsibility of my department. In relation to advice provided to me on that issue, I have sought still further advice from my department on several occasions this week and they have confirmed to me that they gave me no advice on that matter, which is hardly surprising because it was not an issue for which I had ministerial responsibility."
* SIEVX.com - "Did the Australian Government contribute to the deaths of 353 asylum-seekers?"
** Note that SIEV-X stands for "Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel X"
*** And if it's still not clear (as it wasn't for many commentators), that's X for unknown, not 10. Mark Hurd 08:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, references and sources of information 

message: It's one of the images officially releaed by the DOD, I got it from the library here . I've altered the copyright tag according to the defence media organisations specifications--nixie 04:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Children Overboard Image

message: Here's how I'm thinking of structuring the article.
#Background
#"Children overboard"
#Select Commission
There. Simple as that. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Please appropriately justify the exclusion of this paragraph before reverting again:
The Howard reelection campaign focused heavily on "trust" and many thought this would be a debilitating blow. The government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair  and indeed they were reelected with an increased lower house majority, and a newfound majority in the Senate.
The reason given is "rv - that paragraph was not only unnecessary, but completely biased", but the premise of it has not been justified. If this paragraph is factual, I believe it is relevant, and doesn't have an unwarranted bias. Prima facie, the only POV statement to is "many thought this would be a debilitating blow", which does not have a citation to support it. "The government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair", I believe, is significant because it explicates the circumstances of the affair, and thus is relevant — i.e., necessary. If it is "completely biased", please show how it is not objective. If the paragraph is true, it is both necessary and not excessively biased. Rintrah 07:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because you're making a very clear implication that the fact that the government won the 2004 election vindicates the Howard line that the public was uninterested in the affair. This is pure bias. Rebecca 08:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't write it, so I did not express anything. I think citing the government view is important to understanding the background, so the citation should stay. I have reread the paragraph and agree that implication exists and is unsupported by any argument or source. "The many thought" part should be removed too because it is weasel language. Rintrah 15:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: This paragraph was in the "Scrafton and the reopened inquiry" section but is logically irrelevant to it. Moreover, the article lead-in contains statements about the election outcome (which can be expanded upon if inadequate). The paragraph is removed. --Bren 09:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph 

message: I've removed the following: "The Howard reelection campaign focused heavily on "trust" and throughout the government maintained that the Australian public was uninterested in the entire affair." The source given did not back up this statement. We have the following, "TONY EASTLEY: The Government is maintaining that the children overboard affair is of no interest to the general public.", which is merely a journalist's opinion. If we are telling our readers that the Government said something, we need a Government source, and nothing in the subsequent interview shows Eastley's view to be correct.
I don't think that there's any doubt that the Government campaigned on trust, but again, the quoted source does not back up the statement. Overall, this is very shoddy work. --Pete 09:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: stop picking fights just for the sake of it Pete, you don't dispute the fact so all that is needed is a source, either find a source yourself or leave it there with the  note. and get off your high horse while you're at it. WikiTownsvillian 10:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you don't take yourself too seriously, otherwise I might take offence at you calling my edits "crap". The problem is that a reference was given, and as I have pointed out, it didn't back up the statement. Looks like you are trying to have a second bite of the cherry here. And yes, I do dispute the statement. I haven't seen anything saying that the government maintained that the public was uninterested - on the contrary, the government devoted a lot of campaigning to this very issue. As for trust, that's also irrelevant - the government slogan was "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low?" Perhaps you are confusing the two meanings of the word "interest"? --Pete 11:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it is I didn't call your particular edit crap, I called your style of confrontational editing crap.  You just said "I don't think that there's any doubt that the Government campaigned on trust" and now you say "I do dispute the statement", I'm not engaging in your games, if you wish to remove the reference than bring it up at wikiproject politics, if there is any question about your edits I do not take them to be in good faith after my previous experiences and the experiences of others with your editing style.  I will edit it to reflect the lack of my general knowledge to back up the uninterested line. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 11:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are just being provocative. Looking at the previous history of this article, I think it is clear that the government's response during the election campaign needs to be included, but just spinning the straight ALP line isn't on. I had hoped that we could work on this together, because I don't want to nibble away at the article as so many others do, instead building something relevant, objective and well-sourced, but really, turning Wikipedia into ALPopedia isn't serving our readers very well at all. Now, if you'll give me a bit of time, I'll look through the references available and see if I can come up with something for you to comment on. --Pete 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: <---
I have restored it to the article, without it the article focus is only on the ALP campaign with it there the LIB campaign is now also covered hence making it balanced. Both campaigns focused on this event as an issue, it should be given greater detail within the article as the events notability is/was more about the politics than its actual occurrence Gnangarra 02:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I agree that this is something that needs more work. However, the Liberal campaign thrust was on trust with regard to interest rates - Linking that to the COA is a long bow to draw, IMO. Only one side of politics seems to have made the assertion. It would be good to have a government view for balance. --Pete 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government claims? 

message: I found the whole scandal highly perplexing. Whilst John Howard clearly lied for electoral gain, I don't see why simply initially telling the truth would have actually made that much difference.  Clearly, someone on SIEV IV deliberately scuttled the ship in order to force the Royal Australian Navy personnel to rescue them so that they could have access to the Australian legal system and it is more than likely that a number of the passengers would have colluded in that, thereby putting the lives of all on board, including the children, at risk.
:: Er, no, towing the boat caused it to sink...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.137.212.170 (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So rescuing SIEV IV people would open Australia to "tens of millions" of refugees? Hmmm. Slac speak up! 22:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Entire section irrelevant to this entry. (BTW Citing an opinion that doesn't provide sources is as bad as not providing a citation in the first place, probably worse as it gives said opinion false credibility.)
There is no statement as to the composition of the senate inquiry. 
There is no statement as to the exact lie that Peter Reith told.
WHen Peter Reith said "these photos prove I am correct", in fact the only lie was the the photo showed his timing was wrong, but otherwise he was right. In fact Peter Reith never made a statement about timing. So at worst his statements are only misleading but not a lie. 202.92.33.210 03:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asylum seeker issue a smokescreen for Howard Governent's high immigration policies 

message: :::Pete -- in his Edit Summary for his last revert of this phrasing, Prester John asked for a reference. That suggests a 5th editor who supports sourced accurate qualifiers. I provided one. What is POV about that? Qualifying existing facts neutrally within the article according to reliable sources is unremarkable, really. You seem to be arguing information should be excluded on the basis of what you presume my motives are, not on the basis of content, reliable sources and fact. You may not like the fact of the composition of the two Senate Comittees, or the nature of the reports they compiled, but your personal displeasure does not excuse censorship. Consider that implying these Committees, as a whole, found (agreed with) everything in their respective report mischaracterises the reports, the majority view, and the minority view of those Committees. That's neither NPOV, nor intellectually rigorous, nor encyclopedic. Consider that it is wrong to write these facts in a way that implies the minority view considered the majority view to be valid when they most certainly did not (or vice-versa). It does not do justice to the respective viewpoints and those Committees as a whole. Please think about this, avoid deleting references and avoid unnecessary disruptive reversions. --Brendan [ contribs ] 02:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of references

message: Your history of misrepresenting facts and misleading edit summaries have dwindled your credibility. Since you reverted many many times with no explanation, I have to wonder why you would not point out the reference before? Prester John  -(Talk to the Hand) 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the Edit Summaries used & look at the diffs. It's all there on the record, I clearly alerted participants to the addition of the reference, after which you continued reverting. Not everyone uses unrepresentative Edit Summaries like you, Prester. If you had read my Edit Summaries and look at the diffs, your excessive request to be personally notified on a talkheader somewhere would be rendered totally unnecessary. --Brendan [ contribs ] 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Skyring(Pete)', your own edit waring, tag-teaming with User:Prester John is hardly good behaviour. Don't make public announcements about others' edit waring when you are indulging in edit waring yourself.--Lester 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting text that has repeatedly failed to gain consensus is not in the same league as inserting that text, I suggest. I also note another anon IP address, no previous etc. has made exactly the same edit. Looks like a pattern of behaviour to me. --Pete 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tangents 

message: Not long after the article was unprotected, a very large section of the article was deleted here without any explanation. The edit seems to have deleted a statement that the government was criticised over the children overboard affair. It is undeniable that the Australian government received huge criticism over it. It was clearly referenced. So what's the justification for deletion? I ask all editors to discuss it on the talk page before deleting sections of the article, as otherwise it becomes the first step in an edit war. Thanks, --Lester 02:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Deletion of government criticism

message: Prester John, please articulate what your specific reasons are for your recent reverts (here, 
here &  here). Your edit summaries do not adequately explaing why you have done this. Your reverts have deleted (among other things) a reference/link to the Senate Inquiry (ie. a critical part of the article), yet you keep the link to the minority dissent report, introducing article bias. Please do not remove specific relevant detail without apparent cause. Please engage in talkheader discussion before making further reverts. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 06:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A revert should only be used to correct extreme examples of vandalism and libel. It should never be used to delete cited content.  I hope all editors follow this courtesy. --Lester2 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prester John : Unfounded reverts & deleting information/references

message: The page has been protected for 3 days so that the participants in the dispute can try to reach consensus on the talk page. Please take this opportunity to do so. MastCell Talk 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: This article has been protected for 48 hours, please take this time to discuss any further changes. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: How are the apparent actions on the SIEV 7 evidence of previous history in the context of the Government announcing children overboard on the SIEV 4? The events on the SIEV 7 hadn't occurred yet. Or have I got the chronology wrong? --Mat Hardy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a question 

message: I plainly remember news footage of the time: the night the whole thing broke on Aussie TV; showing a man at the side of the boat shouting angrily at the approaching aussies and holding up and shaking a child in front of him as if to throw the child into the water. I do not recall whether he threw the child in the water but he plainly threatened to do so. Any reasonable person would have assumed that this was his threat or intention. maybe this is where the whole things came from.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.192.104 (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  news footage of the time 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Children Overboard affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070917132553/http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/c03.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/c03.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080128193146/http://www.truthoverboard.com:80/photos.html to http://www.truthoverboard.com/photos.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070918101229/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/media/310804.pdf to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/scrafton_ctte/media/310804.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070910213515/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/ to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/scrafton_ctte/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Children Overboard affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060313072341/http://www.news.com.au:80/story/0,10117,18282114-28097,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18282114-28097,00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714022158/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/report/d01.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/scrafton_ctte/report/d01.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041125141639/http://www.pm.gov.au:80/news/media_releases/media_Release1103.html to http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release1103.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041013155640/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/Senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/index.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/scrafton_ctte/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings
The events of the first day were trivial. On the second day of the incident passengers sabotaged their own vessel on several occasions. They destroyed the radiator hoses of the ship's engine so that it could not pump out the bilges. The Australian Navy on three occasions repaired the damage and installed a pump. Nonetheless the ship sank. All of the children were sunk overboard except eight small infants who were handed to Navy personel directly.
The politically-biased media lied by repeatedly for many months by asking whether any child was dropped into the water on the first day when they knew that all children had the vessel scuttled beneath them by passengers on the second day.
The media never mention the events of the second day. The second day never happened. Deceivers continue to present the incident as an example of PM Howard lying.
PM Howard probably did not emphasize the sabotage (mentioned in Parliament) because his government was still in great debt (the Keating debt) and because he probably wished to avoid having the passengers charged with a crime - the courts were already overburdened by immigration cases.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.41 (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public deceived by the media 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Children Overboard affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830082852/http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/trans.php?transid=317 to http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/trans.php?transid=317
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does this article capitalise the phrase Children Overboard, such as here:
 A Senate select committee inquiry, composed mainly of non-government senators, found that no children were thrown overboard from SIEV 4, that the evidence did not support the Children Overboard claim
It seems peculiar to me as a native Australian english speaker.
Because it's a named incident, in this and other sources. Seems fine to me,
keeps the words together without having to use quotes every time. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of 'Children Overboard'