Jump to content

Talk:Australian Secret Intelligence Service

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleAustralian Secret Intelligence Service was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 1, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 17, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Sheraton Hotel incident details

[edit]

This article originally stated that in the 1983 Sheraton Hotel incident, the agents were arrested, and in an allegedly drunken state. I can't find any confirmation of that. Anyone have any? --K. 06:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - with the impending anti-terrorist legislation about to go through - are we allowed to write about such secret squirrel stuff or do we risk getting done for sedition? Do we have any martyrs out there? Being only one of two d'angelos living in Canberra, with the possibility of arab ancestors from around 1,000 years ago, I'm definitely keeping my head down low. I hereby formally state that I had nothing to do with this article and if I have said anything to offend anyone, I take it all back forthwith. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 11:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC) ps this logo is used by the Western Bulldogs and does not carry any political intent or meaning - I promise - they are as squeaky white waspish as you can get despite the fact that the old Footscray West neighbourhood is about as multicultural as any place on Earth (to put it mildly) - so I beg all ASIS officers reading this page - don't take out your frustrations on the Bullies!![reply]


It is unlikely that the Sunday Age could have disclosed the names following the incident, as it did not exist until 1989 (unless, of course, "following" means over 6 years later). So it was either a weekday or Saturday Age, or one of the former Sunday newspapers such as the Sunday Press. -- Pdwerryh 11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References need restoration work

[edit]

Once upon a time this article was very well referenced: [1] shows the last version where references were associated with specific facts. Then the references got "cleaned up", in the process dissociating them from the article text. This is going to be a bunch of hard work to restore since a years' worth of editing has gone on since then, I'm unlikely to get very far before heading off. So I'm leaving a note here on Talk: for others to pick up on. Bryan 06:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, never mind - sorting out the old "Digest1" etc ref templates was easier than I'd feared, I think I'm done. Bryan 06:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment completed for Australian Secret Intelligence Service

[edit]


As per either a recent request at or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article supplies a reasonable to good depth of knowledge

However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question.

ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the "Requesting an assessment section", and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 10:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I thought the bugging of the Chinese Embassy happened in 94-95?????

Fair use rationale for Image:Asisgov.gif

[edit]

Image:Asisgov.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Royal Commission

[edit]

The National Archives of Australia has released the records of the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security under the 30 year rule.[2] There is more than enough material to spin this off into a new article. 59.167.57.197 (talk) 08:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Australian Secret Intelligence Service/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Staring GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Checking against GA criteria

[edit]

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    • The artcile is reasonably well written
    b (MoS):
    • There are a large number of redlinks. Redlinks are fine if the articles are going to be written, but they haven't been in 3 years. The bulleted list in Legislative changes affecting ASIS is not good. Please rewrite as prose.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    • A large number of statements are not referenced at all. The citation format is not consistent thtroughout
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    • Alkl that can be checked are OK
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):
    • Is there material available about ASIS between 1954 & 1972?
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    • tagged and licensed or with suitable rationale
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • captioned
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • A few concerns, Redlinks, referencing, is the article as broad as it could be in scope? On hold [forgot to sign - July 7 Jezhotwells]
    It likes as if progress is being made. leave a note here if you need more time. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Secret Intelligence Service. 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:

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) 23:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Secret Intelligence Service. 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:

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) 04:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Ratih Hardjono, Bruce Grant, & Gareth Evans section

[edit]

This section seems out of place; its relevance to ASIS isn't clear, it contains a number of grammatical errors, and it seems to be written from a very specific point of view. Delete?

mnot (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Secret_Intelligence_Service&oldid=1194483087"