Talk:Douglas Wood
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
Douglas Wood 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. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
I need a source for the claim that it is going directly to the kidnappers, the story from The Australian doesn't make this claim, Philip Ruddock (see daily telegraph story) appears to support Hilaly's actions in visiting baghdad. not that i disagree that the ransom payment scenario is likely, but it would be good to have a source. clarkk 02:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The Herald-Sun today says: "The family urged the captors to tell them, through intermediaries, how they wanted the money to be spent." I agree this isn't a direct payment, but it amounts to the same thing. If the kidnappers accept the "donation" it will go to a bogus "charity" controlled by them (a very common phenomenon in the Arab world), and will be spent on funding more terrorism and kidnappings. Adam 03:26, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Adam completely. PMA 03:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps so, but without a source, this is entirely irrelevant. Ambi 10:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I have provided a source. Adam 10:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Shouldn't be this on the front page news now?
Shouldn't be this on the front page news now that he's been freed? It seems to be quite big news in Australia at least. secfan 10:05, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Article not NPOV
This article is no way NPOV. The last paragraphs need to be corrected or eliminated as they are opinionated and appear hostile towards Douglas Wood. Why doesn't the article mention that he was constantly beaten up by the kidnappers and this was backed up by another Swedish hostage. Also it does not mention the fact that he apologised to the Australian government for making those statements about troops pulling out of Iraq. edited by 202.138.215.58 (Talk) at 05:00, 21 July 2005
- The last paragraphs are not opinionated:
- 1. Wood confirmed in the Channel interview that he had $176,000 with him when he was kidnapped
- 2. Wood benefited from Sheikh hilally and his family making noises about wanting to help Iraqi people. Wood is an arsehole for making an "apology", all it does is make sure the next hostage gets killed
- 3. Wood has returned after an extended absence to Australia for medical treatment because it is free.
- 4. His hostage taking experience was horrible, however he was not an innocent abroad. His rank opportunism clearly has hurt his credit in Australia.
- edited by 220.239.179.10 (Talk) at 13:04, 12 August 2005
[edit] BLP and VER apply
The material in this article needs to follow WP:VER and WP:BLP. I have removed most of the unsourced material as per BLP. Pls supply sources. SmithBlue (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Why didn't you just tag the page? Seeing as there were no disputed claims it would have been much simpler and a lot less work than someone putting it all back with the sources added later. I just did a quick search and everything you deleted has good sources available. I just don't have time to sort them all out and add them myself atm. Wayne (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The page was tagged at 17:03, 27 December 2007.
I dispute all unsourced material in a BLP especially that which is potentially libellous. The page contained many serious statements not linked to sources as demanded by BLP.
BLP demands references on the page - not an editor, no matter how respected, saying that references are available.
I think WP is better off without masses of information in a BLP unverifiable by a casual reader or someone without a lot of time - WP claims to be an encyclopedia, a source of verified and readily verifiable information from specified sources.
I can understand a contributing editor feeling disappointed, do remember that the good work that editors have produced here is still easily and quickly available for referencing (and then re-inclusion) via the history tab. I am open to discussion on any of these points. SmithBlue (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
