Talk:Unauthorised arrival

unsigned comment
Could be clearer that asylum seekers are unauthorised but not necessarily illegal.

Also that some countries recognise that asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum, etc, etc, but lock them up anyway.

You spelled it wrong!
whoever created this article spelled "unauthorized" wrong. dposse 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page. If that causes any problems, then please discuss it here before doing anything. dposse 23:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Unauthorised" is the British spelling. A quick Google search will reveal more hits for "unauthorised arrival" than "unauthorized arrival". See Manual_of_Style. - Borofkin 23:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dposse, you did this so please change it back to Unauthorised arrival (not Unauthorized Arrival). If the term arises most frequently in an Australian or British Commonwealth English context, this is in fact the correct spelling and you have it wrong. MilitaryTarget 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But "unauthorized" is the correct spelling. Go ahead and look it up in any dictionary. Since this article has nothing to do with the british, what's the point in keeping the incorrect version of this article? I mean, if this article had something to do with britian, i would gladly change it back.

See: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Renaming_%28moving%29_a_page

dposse 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You've contracdicted yourself. Why would you move the article back if it had something to do with Britain? If the spelling is incorrect, and does not appear in any dictionary as you say, then we certainly shouldn't move the article back just because it was related to Britain. The word is clearly correct according to the British spelling, and a Google search reveals that both versions of the word are used roughly equally. Therefore, the article title should have remained how it was originally created, in accordance with Manual_of_Style. Note that I don't think the spelling should be changed at this point. There are far more productive ways to use our editing time. - Borofkin 02:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right of course Borofkin, yet we have an incorrectly changed article name, which also doesn't follow WP style (second word capitalised). Dposse, please change back as requested. MilitaryTarget 02:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I didn't notice that the second word had been capitalised. Yes, it will need to be changed. - Borofkin 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. if you want to change it back so bad, do it yourself. dposse 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Have the decency to graciously clean up after yourself. You've been asked nicely several times. MilitaryTarget 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

MT was correct that the page needed to be moved back to its original location Unauthorised arrival, but doing so required admin tools because the redirect had a history. I completed the move. Jonathunder 17:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much Jonathunder. - Borofkin 01:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The heading of this section should read "You spelled (or spelt) it wrongly!". The adverb "wrongly" is required rather than the adjective "wrong". AussieBoy 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue
"This right is not recognised by all countries, some of whom imprison asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation (see Mandatory detention in Australia)."

I am sure that there are arguable cases for compliance, or failure of compliance, with the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees by Australia. It's a debatable claim that detention constitutes persecution of a particular group (in fact, it's incredibly speculative). I am not aware of any authoritative body that has held this to be the case. Therefore, unless someone decides to contest this, I will delete the non-neutral section.

GuyIncognito 10:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)