Talk:World Youth Day 2008

Logo Image

I was contacted today by the Communications Manager from the official World Youth Day office and they asked me to remove the logo because its presence on Wikipedia contravenes their rules. --THorsman88 2:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we ask permission? I know its a permission based logo usage rule so maybe if we ask them stating our reasons and referencing the World Youth Day main page, they might reconsider.

Seems to have been fixed by the end of 2006.

Riots in Sydney

Took out section about alleged riots across Sydney in '06 following arrest of protester. There were no such riots and no media reports, the only source to mention such a thing is wikipedia itself.

weblinks

cleanup of weblinks needed, they are way too many and way too boring;-) --77.179.94.122 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have been done on 24 October 2007

Needs to be done again. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed?

Why is this article removed? There's no article on the link it is linking to.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calibwam (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It was copied and pasted from a copyrighted website. If you want to try recreating a new article follow the redlink and start from scratch 121.216.21.206 00:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The page linked to in the copyright notice is no longer available --bacco007 08:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually most of the content claimed as copyright was added at [1]. The other source is still visible in the Google cache at [2].

A little careful squinting makes it likely that the other site copied a later version of the Wikipedia article, so I'm reverting the addition of the copyvio tag. --Alvestrand 10:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

World Youth Day vs. World Youth Day 2008?

Does anyone think that a lot of this information could and should be reproduced on or transferred to the World Youth Day wiki page? This is effectively the "parent" article, yet contains no section on criticism. IMHO there should be a single article on "World Youth Day" and "World Youth Day 2008" should be a sub-section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.151.30 (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the scope of WYD (500000 pilgrims expected) it seems reasonable to have a page on each event, given that other recurring events (such as the Olympics, with less attendees, although clearly more media coverage) have substantial pages for each time the event occurs.--Mhari.D (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Past WYE events do not have seperate pages, even though they are demonstrably larger than the "anticipated" attendance figures for Sydney 2008 (I dispute the 500K figure anyway, given the current number of pilgrim registrations). Either each WYE event should have a page or this information should be consolidated into a single WYE page. Anything else is inconsistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.133.81 (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent if pages are created on an as-needed basis. I believe WYD 2008 certainly needs its own page even if previous WYDE events do not, due to the controversy surrounding it. --Jaye001 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There are articles for the previous 2 WYDs, in Koln and Toronto. I imagine that the reason they don't exist for those before is largely due to lack of information online, but I'm sure you could start articles for previous events if you were concerned about inconsistencies. 62.24.195.189 (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed the following uncited text as being OR. Whatever one's opinion of the regulations, they don't seem to violate anyone's ability to hold a religious position, much as they do impose on the ability to express that belief.

These laws may directly violate the rules dictated by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 18.2 which says;

"...bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert."<ref>CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22., 1993</ref>

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. The law also means that those with a non-religious or atheistic view to adhere to any religious imposition (enforced apostasy) - especially by the State. Legally, the problem is to enforce or threaten some penalty, just because someone disagrees or wishes to protest against some adopted position (especially through dogma) is wrong. Law already gives all individuals and groups freedom of religion - especially with protection against violence or intimidation of those who profess to some doctrine - but this is not the problem here. People do have the right to express their views and should not "compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their beliefs or congregations". The N.S.W. Government has actually disregarded this - hence, it is in violation of United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The "freedom of religion" here is also applied to the "freedom of non-religion." So although human rights does properly protects religious groups, it also importantly protects those who don't adhere to any religion either. Ie. "Enforced apostasy" is, according to the UN, illegal and against basic human rights. Presently some civil libertarians are in preparation of contact with U.N. in these quite serious matters. However, due to the very short time frame of this story, citations maybe delayed several days until the position comes to hand. Regardless, the statements made here are true and factual. Regards, Ariane1au 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse the right to hold a belief with the right to express that belief. The regulations clearly violate the later right, but I don't see any reason to claim that they violate the right to hold a belief, or that they require anyone to believe anything. That said, there is no legal right to freedom of speech in Australia. Regards, Ben Aveling 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If, as you state, " I don't see any reason to claim...", clearly shows you don't fundamentally understand the real issue here. People are actually being threatening with fine or imprisonment for what they believe (or don't believe) while these new laws appear to be supporting or promoting one particular religion. Hence the statement of"Enforced apostasy". Actually BOTH the right to hold and express beliefs are being questioned. I.e. If I have some T-Shirt with an "interpreted" anti-Catholic slogan, for example, I can be fined (or arrested) for holding that belief - all just because it is "annoying" or does not meet current Catholic doctrine. The problem here is that "annoyance" is not a crime, and the oppression of those wanting to state or holding a different position is being imposed by law. Hence, this does appear to break the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, 18.2. I should add also applies to other denominations and religions (not just only non-believers). As this is also a legal issue currently being investigated by civil rights groups (both Catholic and non-believers). This is not my view or opinion, but is also held by others, and is properly referenced.

However, as you say, "there is no legal right to freedom of speech in Australia". True. But it is a generally an unsaid - but an understandable - and an expected right of all citizens. For this reason, the only way people's fundamental rights of Australia can be challenged if through the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which Australia happens to be a signatory.

Please leave the text there, and let others make up there own mind!

Regards, Ariane1au 08:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently we say: "Some have started to suggest [it violates UNHCR rule] 18.2". There are two citations given. Neither suggests that this regulation violates that rule. I put it on you to find a citation that suggests that it violates that particular human right. Otherwise, someone will remove the text, and probably sooner rather than later. It can be added back in later if you find evidence to back the claim. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This statement by you is quite unfair. Otherwise, someone will remove the text, and probably sooner rather than later. Just because you don't concur with this view does not mean it is right or wrong. Moreover, it sounds more like a threat, enticing others to remove it! Frankly, you should really be more polite.

For the moment, leave this there - at least until the ruling on the 15th July 2008. If these laws are repealed, then this might not be necessary to add anyway. If they stand, this human rights option might be the only recourse.

The problem is that this is still an evolving story, which is currently being strongly debated in the New South Wales, Sydney and the Australian community.

So shouldn't we at least express at least what the general debate is about so that others not in Australia can understand? (From some other Catholic reports I read, many have expressed this is a direct attack on Catholics. It is not. The problem is the implications of these laws on the general community especially in New South Wales.

(Note: I intend to add some further text explaining the decision on the 15th July, with references)

Ariane1au 13:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

References missing

Have the references been lost? They don't appear anywhere on the listing for the page or the page itself. If you click on the reference numbers, you don't go anywhere. I tried this again in IE in case it was a browser problem, but there are no references for this page anymore. The external links are missing as well. I'm new to interpreting the page history, but it didn't look like they'd been removed. How do I bring them back? Iwoolf (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

They're there. At least for me. Some of them badly need work, but they're there. I guess you've tried a refresh. Is anyone else having problems? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Protest - Criticism - Protests in Australia

The critical section of the article are very overstretched, apparently an user is on a mission. They should be reduced. (I can't do that since I'm not a native speaker.) --Saint-Louis (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's unbalanced. I think we need more about WYD itself, and I think the protest/criticism section should be a lot tighter. I don't think anyone will mind if you try to take out a few of the less important bits, and trim the duplication. This is a wiki, the absolute worst that can happen, so long as everyone acts in good faith, is that people disagree with your changes and undo them. More likely, I expect your changes will be sensible, and where your English isn't perfect, people will keep the changes and improve the English. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restructured and shortened the paragraphs. I think it is much better now. The original text was full of redundancies and not structured well. Since the controversial parts of the law were overruled by the Federal court there could be more text shortened, I think.

Saint-Louis. I really take offence to your accusations that I have an agenda. If anything, both you and BenAverling actually have the agenda. The protest and criticism is both broadly documented and covered in the Australian media. The problem is nothing to do or is against Catholics, but in fact, the N.S.W. Government and these laws which is affronting the so-called "police state" that the laws imply. At present these laws are being challenged in the High Court in Australia by Civil Liberties Groups in Australia, which will be decided upon on Tuesday, 15th July (Australian Time). If this fails, there will be action protested to the United Nations as the article does say. How do you express something that has not happened yet?

I strongly suggest both of you note that this event is still unfolding, and the text about the controversy will probably continue until the end of the event.

I think this section doesn't go far enough, and that the debate focusses on a social problem in Australia of Government to personal freedoms. I also think this section paints a fair picture of the problem, especially as viewed by the foreign media - explaining the issue. Furthermore, WYD is also not only a Catholic pilgrimage, but is being funded by those who live in Sydney.

Except for the constant bickering of the date to the Lateline in question, you seem to have no other reasonable complaint nor stating I "have a mission". What do you base this complaint in actuality other than an anonymous avatar?

(Note: The Lateline date reference will be added immediately after I have posted this message.)

Ariane1au 12:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the POV, as this text properly describes the current controversy.

If you have more positive thing to say on youth day, then simply add it to the Introductory text.

Would it be better to place the controversy part of this aspect on WYD 2008 on different wiki page?

(Fixed some of the text above)

Ariane1au 15:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have significantly amended the organisation of the whole article over a few hours, so it is far more readable. The two sections you discuss about the "protests" have been merged, and I have tried to retain the previous author's words of the topic as well as mine. After reading this, I do take your point the the latter part of the text is negatively balanced, but I see no one else has added 'positive' views of WYD 2008 (other than the "Introduction" and "Format of Events"). I have changed the heading so they are a bit less inflammatory. My overall complaint of Saint-Louis suggest this imbalance is deliberate done. However, just because some feel it is more important to discuss these opposing views does not make it alright to edit it out. As of this date, in my opinion, this article balance reflects quite well the media reaction right NOW - both for and against WYD. After this, the unfolding of events will probably tip the balance the opposite way. As it clearly says in the introductory warning; This article or section contains information about scheduled or expected future events. It may contain tentative information; the content may change as the event approaches and more information becomes available."

Also with these new structural changes, I have also made it so a new section could be easily added BEFORE "Public and Government Concerns in Sydney" (older "Criticism"), where perhaps Catholics attending the event can write in what has happened (even at a later date) or even more general positives of the event.

I would seriously encourage you both to add towards more positive text in such a section to improve the general balance rather than removal of others considerable written work and efforts.

Note: If you really must object, I think the "Multimedia" seems too much of an advertisement for Telstra and "xt3" than anything about WYD 2008. Furthermore, the "Food" and "Souvenirs" comments seem to have little to do with defining the nature of World Youth Day or the pilgrims experiences in Australia. IMO they should be removed, but this would make your complaint of imbalance more prevalent and obvious. Ariane1au 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the number of bytes before and after this significant editing are exactly the same number 28,213 ! [User talk:Ariane1au|Ariane1au]] 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If you think this page is unbalanced, you should also read the wikis on "World Youth Day" and "George Pell" for very similar imbalances ! A version of the information I've just merged also appears (as a modified version in the "World Youth Day" wiki as well. [User talk:Ariane1au|Ariane1au]] 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If those are after POSITIVE information on WYD 2008, perhaps you might like to summarise some of the text from the Parliament of N.S.W. "World Youth Day Bill" of the 15th November 2006, which is obtained at This an excellent summary of the event up to the adoption of the legislation, especially by the Hon. Eric Roozedaal, who moved the motion and said;

'"'It is my privilege to introduce the World Youth Day Bill. The World Youth Day Bill will establish a statutory corporation, the World Youth Day Co-ordination Authority, to plan, co-ordinate and provide for government services for World Youth Day 2008. World Youth Day is a six-day celebration aimed at young people aged from 16 to 35 years from all around the world. Initiated by His Holiness Pope John Paul 11 in 1984, it has become the largest single international mobilisation of young people in the world."

"Last year Sydney proudly won the right to host World Youth Day 2008, which will be held from 14 to 20 July. The high-level delegation that secured this event was led by the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, with the support of the New South Wales Government. World Youth Day 2008 is a wonderful opportunity for Sydney to showcase itself again to the world. It demonstrates our ability to continue to attract and host large-scale international events. Such events focus international attention on Sydney and New South Wales, and they show us at our best. They help to underscore Sydney's reputation as a world-class international city-a city whose people are highly skilled and hardworking, with an easygoing "can do" attitude and friendly manner. Previous World Youth Day host cities have included Rome, Paris, Buenos Aires, Manila, Toronto and Cologne."

There is also the origin of the 'negative' problems, where he concludes;

"Importantly, nothing in the legislation will affect the lawful exercise of powers by police, and the authority will not have any powers of direction in respect of police officers and police resources. NSW Police will, of course, be represented on the authority and will play a central role in planning for World Youth Day. The bill will confer on the authority powers to facilitate the conduct of World Youth Day events. These powers are similar to, but not as extensive as, those that were in place during the Olympics. They include provisions to allow for the establishment of special-purpose traffic lanes, to enable the closure of roads and to allow for fast-tracked approval for events at prescribed World Youth Day venues. This bill draws on the models that were used with spectacular success during the Olympics to ensure that government services for World Youth Day will also be delivered effectively and efficiently. While responsibility for staging World Youth Day rests ultimately with the church, proper co-ordination and planning by relevant government agencies will be imperative for its success."

Even more interesting is the debate by the Hon. Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans statements stating;

"I think the Parliament of New South Wales needs to change the New South Wales Constitution Act 1902 with the object of the Parliament of New South Wales recognising, respecting and guaranteeing freedom of conscience and of religion equally to all individuals; recognising, respecting and guaranteeing the equal freedom of every person to change or relinquish his or her religious beliefs; recognising, respecting and guaranteeing every individual's right to profess, within the framework of respect of the law, the religious belief of his or her preference; and recognising, respecting and guaranteeing every individual's right not to have any religion. We should declare that New South Wales is a secular, democratic State with a separation between temporal government authorities and institutions, and religious authorities and institutions."

NOTE: This is the actual key to the current legal objections to the legislation - much of the legal challenge to be decided on the 15th July in New South Wales. (This similar legislation is in the human rights of the U.N. that BenAverling has generally objected too.)

Are such positive (and negative) quotes also acceptable additions for this wiki? Ariane1au 23:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No. If you want to make an article about the World Youth Day bill, feel free to do this. But this is an article about the World Youth Day and the bill is only one small aspect of it. --Saint-Louis (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Page has been defaced

Someone has gone through and defaced the World Youth Day 2008 page with "waste of money" inserted all throughout the page.

Senhwei (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Had a bit of a cleanup on the page and tried to standardise a lot of the links.

Also, I've added a link to a transcript of the Lateline Show where Broken Rites were on, but can't find any reference to a conversation regarding the NSW police visiting and asking what T-shirts they'd be wearing. May need removing if it can't be validated?

Mapryan (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is;

"Debate continues over Youth Day laws"

Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 02/07/2008 Reporter: Philippa McDonald

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2292521.htm

The quotes are on this page

Arianewiki1 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Mapryan, Thanks so much for fixing the references!

Arianewiki1 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Repaired the wanton damage caused by 59.167.57.63. as best I could. Far to many errors that are not confirmed in the references, especial as "regulation" and not the official N.S.W. "amendments".

Arianewiki1 12:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job on finding that link!

Mapryan (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

NEW AMENDMENTS versus REGULATIONS

Anonymous users should at least discuss problems or disputes here. "Regulations" are wrong, they are passed laws by the New South Wales Parliament. "Regulations" are directions by Government on events or guide to actions. You cannot be taken to court for breaking "regulations", except by some regulatory authority. The law of "annoying" during WYD 2008 is a criminal act, and you can be arrested or fined for breaking them. Hence the debate. As for "anti-Catholic" bias, and I have added nothing without referencing the source. Other authors may have done so. I think the attempts to change the general text it to water down the implications of this unprecedented laws - bordering on vandalism. If you can show why this view is wrong, it is better to say so here to resolve this dispute.Arianewiki1 21:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC

It's clear that you have limited knowledge of how the New South Wales legal system operates. That's okay, but don't go around calling good faith edits of mine vandalism. Please research the subject a bit more and don't just completely ignore the corrections outlined in the edit summaries. The main changes i'll outline as follows:

Title of section: 1) The part "for WYD 2008 in Australia" is redundant per the Manual of Style. The article is about WYD 2008 in Australia so that is assumed. This is also true for the change made to the "Expected Attendence title" 2) The legal instruments in question are called "regulations". You don't refer to "Amendment laws". The Amendment act amends the regulations. The clauses are still regulations. The amending act is essentially irrelevant. You cite and refer directly to the act/regulation/rule/by-law etc and this is always assumed to be the consolidated version with all amendments included. See the final consolidated regulations here: [3]

On the spot fine: The maximum penalty is indeed $5,500. This the the maximum amount that can be imposed in a court. Schedule 1 of the Regulations provides for the value of the on the spot fine (called penalty notices). This is $300. See [4]

Inclusion of a sentence on the annoyance provision: This is the most contentious of the provisions in the regulation and a section on them would be incomplete without explaining them. Especially as the annoyance provisions are then copied verbaitm in the next section.

'Ratification' by Parliament and the Government Gazzette Paragraph 1) Parliament does not ratify regulations. They instruments that are made by the executive government within the authority given to it by a particular Act. 2) All regulations are Gazzetted. You don't refer to a Regulation, Rule or By-Law within the Gazzette. You always just refer to it directly. The Gazzette is irrelevant. 3) Manual of Style dictates that "The Hon" and "MP" are not included within the body of text.

Other changes further up the article are copyedit changes to 1) conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, 2) Remove irrelevant material already mentioned, and 3) Be of a more encyclopedic tone. Jmount (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

World Youth Day Regulation 2008 World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008 The object of this Regulation is to amend the World Youth Day Regulation 2008 In particular, the Regulation This Regulation is made under the World Youth Day Act 2006, 1 Name of Regulation This Regulation is the World Youth Day Regulation 2008. (1) In this Regulation: "the Act" means the World Youth Day Act 2006 . (2) Notes included in this Regulation do not form part of this Regulation.

I really don't know how i can make it much clearer.... These are regulations. They are not legislative instruments passed by parliament rather they are regulations made by the executive. The Gazzette notice even makes this clear. "Her Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the following Regulation under the World Youth Day Act 2006."

I've provided detailed rationale for all the other corrections. Please address these and detail why they are incorrect! Jmount (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

JMount.. I think you obviously don't understand is how this law was introduced. The general law in New South Wales has been made for those who protest (or any other such laws), and these are there to guide legal actions against individuals that break it. However, upon some special event, the Government can introduce "regulations" to the event. However, these can be debated in Parliament. Whilst the WYD 2008 was presented in the NSW Parliament, they were amended. Hence the title of the Second document is an "Amendment". When an item is placed in NSW Parliament, it is voted upon it became a law. So the amendment in question was that - an amendment of draft "regulations" - and this is what is quoted. However, once it became law - an amended law - people can be prosecuted or fined - which can be later defended in court. Suggest you read the "http://www.smh.com.au/news/world-youth-day/court-dumps-annoy-law/2008/07/15/1215887596459.html", where it is reported ""Over and above these provisions the general criminal laws of the state relating to disorderly and offensive conduct and the like are able to be invoked should that be necessary." Also it says; "Two Sydney activists have won a Federal Court challenge to special World Youth Day laws that carry $5500 fines for annoying pilgrims." Note: "...World Youth Day laws..."

You even had the audacity to change the original references from; "http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/wydr2008290/" instead of the LATER "World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007" http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/nswbills.nsf/0/B9BD72676C89BB3FCA2573A0001D8692?Open&shownotes

What does it say. "World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007". Is that not what I've written in the text? NOTE: This is and;

" * Assented on 13/12/2007 - Act No 96 of 2007 (GG No. 185, 21/12/2007, p 9805)."

" *See Digest 8 of 2007, dated 04/12/2007 for an examination of this Bill by the Legislation Review Committee."

So why are having to quoting a earlier reference to 2006, here???

Therefore, "regulation" is assented BEFORE the amended law. THAT IT IS WHY IT IS AN AMENDMENT!!! (or now are you saying not Hansard is not a true record?)

Read the Explanatory Notes

It says;

"This explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament. Overview of Bill The object of this Bill is to make various amendments to the World Youth Day Act 2006 (the Principal Act) to make further provision in relation to the planning, co-ordination and delivery of services in relation to World Youth Day 2008 and related events."

Where does it say "REGULATION". It doesn't!

Now here is the final straw that breaks your entire argument - the law "World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007" passed by BOTH Parliaments http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/nswbills.nsf/0/b9bd72676c89bb3fca2573a0001d8692/$FILE/b2007-102-d26-House.pdf

(This is the ACTUAL "legislative instruments passed by parliament")

Really all the "regulations" mean is the period in which the laws will be enacted. It is not the the current law enforced by the police or imposed by the legal system.

NOTE: I am totally appalled by your own disgusting tactics here You have really abused the 3RR rule by using both an anonymous and avatar (59.167.57.63 to imposes your own incorrect views - neat trick. (SIX strikes and your out, eh? - all using the wikipedia rules) Furthermore, you imposed your viewpoints without using the means of the ability to discuss it within "Discussion Area". However, don't think you will get away with this. As such I will be making a direct complaint to the Wikipedia of you own unfair tactics, and of other that are doing the very same thing.

As for " Arianewiki1 has failed to show how these corrections are incorrect. rmv cleanup, change tag to current event." is quite an affront. It was YOU who changed the original text structure, and yet it became "YOU" who is now imposed your views! (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I am not the ip editor. Go have somebody with the power to check if you really want. This is the only account i've ever edited wikipedia under. I'm offended by the assertion you've made.

2. All my edits have been made in good faith. I have a legal background and upon reading the article for the first time 2 days ago i noted a number of quite shocking errors and misunderstandings in regards to the WYD laws.

3. Your above post is useful, as it has helped clarify where you are getting confused. You are confusing various legal instruments, namely the difference between Acts of Parliament, and Regulations made under them. Further you have confused various amending legislation, bringing in an irrelevant and minor 2007 amendment to the principal Act.

4. The regulations that have been the source of controversy were not debated in parliament. The relevant amendments to the regulations were gazetted on the 25th of June. Parliament is currently in its winter reccess, so any disallowance motion was not possible.

5. It is perhaps now neccesary to distinguish between regulations and legislation.

6. Both regulations and legislation are 'laws'. Thus your point that an article mentioned 'World Youth Day laws' is entirely constistent with my point.

7. The World Youth Day Act 2006 was passed in 2006 by the NSW parliament. This Act provides the legislative framework for the law in relation to WYD.

8. Regulations can be made by the Governor on the advice of the Executive Council (Cabinet) if an Act of parliament gives them the power to do so.

9. In this matter, the World Youth Day Act 2006 gave the executive power to make regulations (See section 58 of the Act). The executive did so and enacted the World Youth Day Regulation 2008 earlier this year. The regulation was to start with essentially an empty shell.

10. It appears you have confused amendments to the Act, with amendments to the Regulations. The regulations that have been the source of some contention were included in the World Youth Day Amendment Regulation 2008, gazetted as mentioned on the 25 of June. These were not tabled or debated in parliament, nor did they need to be. The 2006 Act already gave the executive power to make and amend regulations.

11. You refer to the World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007 being 'placed in NSW Parliament' and being voted on. This was an Amendment to the 2006 Act of Parliament, not the regulations. For one, it can't amend something that dosent yet exist.

12. You ask "What does it say. "World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007". Is that not what I've written in the text?" This bill was a series of minor and routine amendments to 2006 Act. This is not the regulation or anything. You further ask why we are mentioning an act from 2006. Well that is becasue that is the MAIN legislation governing WYD.

13. The contentious provisions such as the Annoyance laws are contained in the Regulation. (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_reg/wydr2008290/ See World Youth Day Regulation 2008) You'll see the annoyance law for example in clause 7 of the regulation.

14. You ask "Where does it say "REGULATION". It doesn't!" Of course a 2007 amendment of the 2006 Act dosent mention the regulations. The regulations werent created untill 2008. And either way, a bill/ac of parliament is not needed to amend regulations

15 You say "Now here is the final straw that breaks your entire argument - the law "World Youth Day Amendment Bill 2007" passed by BOTH Parliaments" Yes of course it did. It is a bill. But it is a bill that does not contain any of the provisions under contention and is quite irrelevant to this discussion.

16. As to your next point, the regulations ARE the law enforced by the police/legal system. Both the ACT and the Regulations are. I detect a fundamental misunderstanding on your behalf of what the two are and how they operate with each other. A few definitions: An Act is a law passed by Parliament. Acts are also sometimes called statutes. Before an Act is passed by Parliament it is called a Bill. / Regulations are laws made by the Governor-General, Ministers of the Crown, and certain other bodies under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament. / Changes made to an Act or Regulation are called amendments.

17. Finally i ask you to read Evans v NSW, the case decided today that struck down clause 7(1)(b) of the WYD Regulations 2008. (The Annoyance Laws). As you read it, it will become quite clear that the annoyance and other provisions that have been the source of controversy are regulations. There is a good factual summary of everything contained in the case.

"It be hereby declared that Clause 7(1)(b) of the World Youth Day Regulation 2008 is invalid, as beyond the regulation making power conferred by s 58 of the World Youth Day Act 2006 (NSW)" Jmount (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments. I'm not an expert of the Australian legislative system, therefore they are very helpful. What do you think about the current structure of the controversies section? Is it ok that way? --Saint-Louis (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sydney overturns Pope protest law

The BBC is reporting this morning that the Law has been struck down http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7506716.stm Mapryan (talk) 6:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

NoToPope link

I think the notopope coalition link in the links section is borderline spam. They are not part of the world youth day in any inclusive manner, merely opposed to it. The inclusion of the link is tantamount to a link to the Liberal Party website on the bottom of the Australian Government article or the ALP website, and with my belief that the article overall places far too much weight on objection and criticism to the day I think this is just icing. If nobody has anything to offer I'll remove the link in a couple of days. •Elomis• 06:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Since the Coalition has its own article I made a wikilink to the article and removed the weblink. --Saint-Louis (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edits and changes to subheadings

I have recently been updating the WYD article to change a lot of the sentences to past tense as well as adding some additional sourced information. One of the changes was to alter some of the subheadings below "Controversies surrounding World Youth Day." My aim was not to reduce the available information but to structure the article better, and I can understand TheSeer may have thought I removed all the info in the old subheading. I'm sorry for not consulting earlier.

I move some of the content from "Australian Responses" into the "protests" heading and renamed it as "Transport." I am happy to discuss the content but I think the newer structure improves the article. Feel free to discuss it and edit it but don't just revert the all the changes. Additionally I have kept the reference to the alleged death threat but I see no reason to include the name of the T-Shirt shop. Including the name adds little to the article and instead provides advertising for the store. I am going to return it to the structure I made. Mr john luke (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your changes in the structure were appropriate. --Saint-Louis (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The information that "Anthony and Christine Foster's daughter Emma committed suicide at aged 26, after abuse by a Melbourne priest at a primary school. Her abused sister Katie, became alcoholic in her teens and was brain-damaged after a car accident while drunk." is noteworthy but not fully relevant to the article.The article should deal with World Youth Day including controversies, but not in detail with particular cases. The cases had already been summarised in the paragraphs above. Mr john luke (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this should be removed and instead put on a separate Wiki page, as it actually has nothing to do with WYD itself. It’s a controversy around the Bishop, not around the event. I agree that having it here takes away the neutral point of view on the page, it is making it more negative than necessary. Mary.elias523 (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag controversy

Should there be mention in the article about the controversy between the current flag of Vietnam and the flag of the former South Vietnam? (see Flag of the Republic of Vietnam#Political significance) The Chronic 19:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Imho not. This is just a minor thing for the World Youth Day. --Saint-Louis (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Funding

Would someone be able to update this page with some final information relating to the finances? The funding section at the moment is still full of speculation and a lack of hard figures. Suerly there must be something more tangible out there now? Mapryan (talk) 8:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.193.24 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on World Youth Day 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080806051331/http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/anger_over_bishop39s_attack_on_cranky_abuse_victims_551961 to http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/anger_over_bishop39s_attack_on_cranky_abuse_victims_551961
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080803102901/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24057379-5016672,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24057379-5016672,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on World Youth Day 2008. 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://www.webcitation.org/64smxVSRN?url=http://www.catholic.org/wyd08/story.php?id=28655 to http://www.catholic.org/wyd08/story.php?id=28655
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080811155917/http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/media__1/latest_news/world_youth_day_sydney_a_success_400_000_fill_randwick_racecourse_for_wyd08_final_mass to http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/media__1/latest_news/world_youth_day_sydney_a_success_400_000_fill_randwick_racecourse_for_wyd08_final_mass
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112101811/http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/media__1/latest_news/pope_benedict_xvi_thanks_volunteers_and_leaves_australia_happy_and_blessed to http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/media__1/latest_news/pope_benedict_xvi_thanks_volunteers_and_leaves_australia_happy_and_blessed
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002012415/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKSHzEnFg_IjhlGLRKN9EoDNf3jg to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gKSHzEnFg_IjhlGLRKN9EoDNf3jg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707153812/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtGYmNq72j_-TNnXfLbSdMgiTPMQ to http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jtGYmNq72j_-TNnXfLbSdMgiTPMQ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729220022/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080719-149455/Popes-Australia-sex-abuse-apology-not-enough----critics to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20080719-149455/Popes-Australia-sex-abuse-apology-not-enough----critics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)