Talk:David Adeang

POV?

The last section looks as if it's been written with a pro-Adeang POV. Namely:

• "the Administration's ministers continued to exercise executive powers without the support of Parliament". Oh, really? What factual basis is there for this assertion? From what I gather, the Stephen administration still has a parliamentary majority, and therefore enjoys the support of Parliament. What it lacks is the support of the Opposition (which is hardly surprising), and of the Speaker, who is aligned with the Opposition.
• "sometimes an indicator of whether a Parliamentary system has survived a coup d'état". That's blatantly POV. A personal comment stemming from an unsupported and probably erroneous assertion.
• "Adeang was thus increasingly emerging as a somewhat traditional figure identified with asserting the prerogatives of a sovereign parliament worthy of the name, along the Westminster model, in the face of attempts to circumvent Parliament." Very heavily POV. This seems simply to be a personal comment by a user who supports Adeang. As preiously mentioned, the Stephen administration has a parliamentary majority, and the Supreme Court has ruled that Adeang cannot circumvent the Constitution! User's personal, derogatory and unsupported interpretation of Stephen's motivations.
• "For its part, the government of Marcus Stephen strongly welcomed the Supreme Court's ruling: whether or not for ideological and principled reasons also, it was seen as ensuring the immediate survival of the Administration." Obvious and blatant POV.

I'm contacting the user who wrote this, so that the POV problem can be fixed. I'll give it a few days before fixing it myself if it's not done. Aridd (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Actually, the government has lost its majority and since the police commissioner was acting as if the police were no longer bound by the standing orders of parliament and thus the rule of parliamentary law, this is the basis for David Adeang's assertion, good, bad or inddiferent, that a coup had taken place. This is the sourcing article:

[[[1]] Radio New Zealand International, March 31, 2008 faroukfarouk

Thanks, but yes, I know what Adeang has said. As for the government's majority, my understanding is that Stephen has the support of 9 MPs out of 18, thus resulting in a deadlocked parliament (and giving Adeang grounds to call for fresh elections, indeed). My concern is with the phrasing of this article, and with the inclusion of personal comments and interpretations, which seem to hint very strongly at a pro-Adeang POV. Aridd (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks for your work! Aridd (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Adeang. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080530112937/http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org:80/pireport/2008/March/03-19-07.htm to http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2008/March/03-19-07.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 01:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Adeang. 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/20080228023535/http://www.plenglish.com:80/article.asp?ID=%7B024A0C98-99F7-4CEA-92F2-B6F13A3A4A60%7D)&language=EN to http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7B024A0C98-99F7-4CEA-92F2-B6F13A3A4A60%7D)&language=EN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 15:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)