Talk:Tim Selwyn

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

What the hell is going on here?[edit]

Why isn't this article sticking to Wiki's POV rules and citing sources. The most recent edit by Midnightonight says the following --Selwyn is planning to appeal, citing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He indicated that he believed the jury did not understand the implications the case will have on free speech. He called the decision "dangerous and undemocratic"[3]. WTF?. When and where did he cite the Bill of Rights? When and where did he say he believed the jury did not understand? The link given does not mention either of those points. This article gets less encyclopedic the further it progresses. Shame. I am deleting those comments.Moriori 09:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I failed to verify that the paragraph accurately reflected the source. I'm happy with your change to it.-gadfium 09:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were on TV3 and I am seeking to find a news source on line that mentions that ( after FOUR edit conflicts) --Midnighttonight 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

follow this link then click on "Click to Play Video" --Midnighttonight 09:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now reads "Selwyn is planning to appeal, calling the decision "dangerous and undemocratic" [3] and having serious implications for freedom of speech[4]" Is there any precendence on dealing with the TV3 link (which requires you to click to play the video)? --Midnighttonight 09:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see that we need to say more than is in the Radio New Zealand link. He plans to appeal, and he thinks it's undemocratic. I don't think we should link to the Video. I can't even see a video link on the page you link to (maybe my ad or flash blocker is killing it), and this is on the machine I use for multimedia web browsing.-gadfium 09:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I've already added a couple of comments from the video which balance that particular paragraph. If we don't ref to the video, how do we ref to those particular statements? Moriori 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know how stable TV3's website is, they may remove the item in a few days time. --Midnighttonight 09:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Firefox cache was corrupted. The link to video was just a blurred graphic. Works fine for me now. I agree that the link probably won't be there for more than a few days, but I expect we'll have rewritten most of the article by then anyway, since we'll have any number of news reports to quote tomorrow.-gadfium 09:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, part of the problem seems to be that our media are ~~useless~~ not reporting the story well. --Midnighttonight 10:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last sedition trial[edit]

Who made the claim that this is the first sedition trial in New Zealand for 75 years? We should have a source for that. I wondered if it was Bill Sutch, but he was charged under the Official Secrets Act, not with sedition.-gadfium 09:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The blogs made the claim, TVNZ Radio NZ and other media have repeated it Brian | (Talk) 09:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the prob. Blogs. Must be accurate then ):-. Moriori 09:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is [[1], but there is a lot of confusion around it (there are actually four offenses entitled "sedition" in New Zealand) ( after FOUR edit conflicts) --Midnighttonight 09:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

30 years seem to the most recent that is claimed. So shall we go with that to be on the safe side? --Midnighttonight 09:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Right Turn has a discussion on the points above about when it was. --Midnighttonight 09:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some media claim 75 years, some claim 30. Based on the prosecutions I know of, and the complete lack of information on the 1967 prosecutions, I've gone with 75 years. --IdiotSavant 10:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at getting it straight esp. as regards what I have admitted liability for. I do plan to appeal once I have talked to my lawyers - an extraordinary situation concerning the validity of an aspect of the trial is also currently suppressed. -Tim Selwyn

Politics of Selwyn[edit]

Does anyone know what political persuasion Selwyn is? I seem to remember him being an ACT/Maori Party supporter. There is a comment here (completely unverifable and unreliable however) that he was an ACT staffer. Anyone got any info? --Midnighttonight 08:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have previously defined myself as a "reformed libertarian" and consider myself to be a liberal nationalist (socially liberal). David P Farrar has put me in the centre of his blog's poilitical spectrum. I was on the liberal right at Auckland University in the early-mid 90s and an Act party member 1994-95 and worked on staff at Act Head Office in 2003 (though I haven't been a member since 1995). I support the Maori Party in principle since it's inception but am not an active participant or member. - Tim Selwyn

Hey, could someone edit this article to say more about this man's actual political beliefs? To an ignorant American like myself, all that seems clear is that he's not a particularly big fan of the current government. Um... why?