Talk:Scott Rush

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

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.	Editors have done a nice job of assembling material but overall the article reads like a magazine news piece about a single event, rather than an encyclopedic account of a man's entire life. "It was reported that", "Media reports also claim", "Further information released following his sentencing, state that", "According to claims made in his defence by Rush's lawyer", "Commenting on the matter at the time", "When asked why he chose to travel to Bali on a paid holiday, Rush replied" It contains too much, off topic information and gives undue weight to details surrounding the single event for which the subject is notable. It needs significant editing and reduction. Here are some specific problem areas: Organization--We should use standard, neutral sections wherever possible such as Early life, Adult life, Personal life etc. This will help editors to keep the material in BLP context and not think in terms of creating a news story. Off topic information--"On 20 April 2005, graphic footage of the arrests and subsequent police questioning of Rush and other members of the Bali Nine was aired on Australian television", "On the same day that Rush was arrested, Indonesian police also arrested Si Yi Chen, Nguyen, Sukumaran and Matthew Norman at the Melasti Hotel in Kuta. Alleged co-ringleader, Andrew Chan was also arrested the same day whilst seated on an Australian Airlines flight waiting to depart Denpasar for Sydney. At the time Chan was arrested, he was carrying three mobile phones and a boarding pass. No drugs were found in his possession." "Chen, Nguyen, and Norman were tried together, with Czugaj being one of the remaining six defendants tried separately." Quotes--See WP:QUOTE and WP:MOSQUOTE. There are too many quotes. Wikipedia prefers that editors summarize the information in their own words. Also many of the quotes are placed in Block Quote format which is not appropriate for quotes of less than three sentences in length. Lead--Too much detail, things like this need to be removed: "former", "on his first trip to Bali", "on 13 February" "in a surprise outcome handed down" "on 6 September", "on 10 May" Early Life--This run on sentence needs to be fixed "From Chelmer, a western suburb of Brisbane, it was revealed following his arrest, conviction and sentencing, that during Rush's school years, he was expelled from Brisbane's St Laurence's College during his Year 10 studies in a drug-related incident." and the editorializing in the middle should be taken out. Criticism of Australian Federal Police tipoff--This entire section is filled with off topic information about peripheral aspects of the crime and the criminal justice system and not about the life of the subject. Most or all of the material in this section should be removed and instead used in the Bali Nine article. I could go on section by section, but I think you get the idea.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and 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 images, video, or 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.