Talk:Tim Blair

message: User  recently removed Mark Lawson from the list of frequently-critiqued journalists, with the edit summary "only two references to Lawson does not justify his inclusion". A quick search found 7 mentions of Lawson since December 2004: , 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, and
. There were several earlier mentions, including The Guardian's Plastic Turkey. (BTW, Has Lawson ever admitted that he was wrong about that notorious bird?) So I'm restoring Lawson to the list. CWC(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark Lawson 

message: I thought I should mention that the Mark Lawson mentioned above and in the article is not the Mark S. Lawson who works for the Australian Financial Review. CWC 21:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark S. Lawson 

message: In this edit, Niceperson907 added an unsourced sentence about Blair being married. Later edits added sources, but neither source demonstrated that Blair is married, let alone to whom. Per the privacy rules in WP:BLP, we must not mention Blair's marital status without a first-class source. As far as I knowGoogle tells me, no such source exists. Cheers, CWC 09:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marital status 

message: CWC, your continual editing of this article to suggest that an alliance between far-left, far-right and radical Islam exists as fact is WP:SYNTH and clearly POV. It is perfectly fine to say that Blair and his followers subscribe to this theory. It is not fine to suggest that a political theory like this is established fact. I have used the words "perceived" and "supposed" to make this distinction - and you keep removing them. Either stop it, or seek a third party arbitration. 
Secondly, inserting the line regarding the Crikey respondents not being journalists is churlish and also POV. It can be argued that anyone undertaking paid writing for a media outlet is engaging in journalism. Also, Blair took legal action against Crikey itself, which is run by journalists. Your insertion is purely designed to justify Blair's actions, given his previous statements about the gracelessness of journalists sueing journalists. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to engage on PR on the subject's behalf. 
Lastly, you can stop with the SPA routine. I have another account with which I edit regularly and the edit history would probably identify me; I use this account to edit this article because I don't fancy being the subject of an acerbic post on Blair's blog. Niceperson907 (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Blair's Law" and Crikey journalists

message: Substituted at 08:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Oshwah has recently deleted much of the article's contents. Please be aware that those edits are basically required by Wikipedia's rules, especially WP:RS and WP:BLP. The core problem is that most of the hyperlinks in the citations are now dead.
(We've recently had a low-key argument about how much to say about the complaint about 'trans-phobia' to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I'm on the side of those who wanted to keep that subsection shorter and more neutral. Oshwah has gone further, and deleted it completely.)
Some of the dead links could be rescued. For instance, http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/12/idiots-of-feather.html is now at http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/12/idiots-of-feather_5546.html (but might not be adequate as a citation). However, all the links to posts at timblair.net are now broken, and hence statements citing one of those links are no longer valid in Wikipedia articles.
Well, at least the shortened article is easier to read! Cheers, CWC 04:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2018 

message: User CWC recently rm'd new section covering NSWCAT's consideration of a complaint of transgender vilification concerning an article published by Blair.  
Reviewed this edit.  It's highly relevant.  It complies with Wiki's BLP (NPOV, V, NOR) policies. Australian Courts and Tribunal's are finders of fact and, as such, meet requirements for reliable published sources in BLP.  Re-instated this edit, however, supplemented with further coverage of the issue in other tertiary sources.  Also added copy of original article as published.  Checked that material does not include contents of proceedings or transcripts.
Also made subsequent amendment to remove the word "although", because this may amount to a synthesized implication.
Will update when Press Council hands down ruling.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandy Sydney (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  September 2018 

message: Hi Chris.  This seems to be circular discussion. I make a number of points in response to your comments:
1.  I understand Wiki's editing policies and the additional obligations around living subjects.  I also understand the underlying ethical reasons.  I do not agree that my edits violate those rules.  I welcome your input into which rules you specifically believe these edits are in violation of, because I have been quite careful with my treatment of the material.  My edits are factually accurate, well cited, checked for tone and bias, analysed with third party language tools to try and moderate bias, and checked against the BLP rules.
2.  The Tribunal made no findings about "fomenting hatred", as you put it (nor is it compelled to).  There are no civil or criminal law provisions concerning fomentation of hatred.  The civil laws around vilification expand much more broadly than 'hatred'.  The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact in relation to Blair's article, and a number of findings at law.  Those findings are matters of public interest to any person looking to learn about Tim Blair's professional history and significant milestones in that professional history.
2.  Whether or not Blair has supported (whatever that may mean) a transgender person in the past has no material bearing on the media ethics of this, or any other, blog post.  It has no bearing on whether there is a public interest in this event which is an important milestone of the subject's professional history.  I have no interest in who Blair does or does not support or why.  My concern is media ethics and the availability of high quality, accurate information about journalism and journalists.
3.  The fact that a person was convicted of a violent act does not justify or legitimize unethical forms of media reporting, if that is what you are suggesting from your repeated reference to 'axe attack' and 'attempted murder'.  Even criminals are imbued with basic human rights relating to dignity and privacy.  Prejudical statements motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation or gender do not become ethically acceptable in terms of media ethics merely because the target has been convicted of a horrible crime.  Similarly, gratuitous emphasis and derogatory slurs do not cease to be unethical in media reporting merely because the target is suspected of a crime. 
4.  I telephoned the Australian Press Council today to ask about its handling of this case, as well as several others.  It reports having numerous complaints in respect of this article.   It expects to hand down a ruling shortly.  But in any case, I accept your point here and I'm happy to edit out references to the Press Council until those complaints are fully disposed of and the Council publishes a full finding in relation to Tim Blair and the impugned material.  I will add information back in after the APC hands down its ruling.
5. Notwithstanding your incorrect use of legal terms of art, your recent edits also mischaracterises this event.   For example, you've suggested that Blair was accused of "publishing material that vilified..."  That's not the case, and this inaccuracy risks defamation.  You've also said "He successfully defended that complaint."  That's also a misrepresentation.  I suggest you get some advice from a lawyer or jurist if you are unsure about what you're writing, or if, indeed, you do not properly understand media ethics or the law.  I've not modified your other edits, but I also suggest that there is some poor syntax around the statement that Blair "defended" an APC complaint in relation to another article he published.  I also have not modified your edit about the racism AHRC complaint, because I am not familiar with the case, but I would suggest it may be a misrepresentation to say that he 'successfully defended' the complaint.  As I understand it, the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant before it ever went to Court.  That's very different to a 'successful defence'.
6.  This event is not "insignificant" as you have claimed in previous edits.  Australian Courts have considered less than a handful of cases of vilification involving material written by professional journalists.  This is a rare event for any journalist to be involved in.  It is a significant event in the professional life of the person who is the subject of the article.
7.  I'm not interested in "criticizing Blair", as you put it.  I'm interested in ensuring that people who are researching his background are able to get accurate, high-quality information about his professional history.  The material is not "hostile spin".  They are impartial findings by a NSW Court of Law.  They have been carefully checked for tone and bias.
8.  You have represented my interested in being a "hit piece" about someone who "wrote something unkind..."  My edits are not a hit piece, nor do they make any claims about whether Blair is "kind" or "unkind".  They are objective findings of fact and law, determined by a Court. Those facts are a significant milestone in the professional life of the subject.  They are presented impartially and without bias.  If you have objections in terms of violations of Wiki rules, you'll need to be specific please.
I have reverted most of your edits.
18-Dec-2018, Pandy
------------------------------------
::I started writing a long reply to this, but most of my points are irrelevant now this article is under discretionary sanctions. I will say only that I disagree with most of Pandy's statements here. Cheers, CWC 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 18, 2018 

message: I'm going to collect some links which might be useful as citations in the article. CWC 06:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: CWC 01:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: A review of this article and its history has demonstrated extensive and persistent WP:BLP violations that have gone unresolved through normal editorial processes. Additionally, it seems that a substantial number of edits to the article fail to comply with WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I am imposing the following page restrictions pursuant to Arbitration Committee-authorized discretionary sanctions:
*Editors are prohibited from adding any information concerning any controversy involving Mr. Blair (including those currently or previously listed in the "Complaints" section of this article, as well as the current "Politics" section) that is not directly supported by a reliable, secondary, inline source in accordance with WP:BLP/WP:BLPSOURCES. 
*The use of primary sources (such as court documents, articles authored by Mr. Blair, or published by the Daily Telegraph) is prohibited unless discussion on this page yields a clear consensus that the use of such sources complies with WP:BLPPRIMARY.
*Modified 1RR/72 hours/enforced BRD: If an edit (other than to enforce the above) is challenged by reversion, it must not be reinstated by its original author until the original author discusses the edit in good faith on this talk page and waits 72 hours from the original edit.
If there is any question as to whether an edit would violate these restrictions, discuss the issue or seek the advice of an uninvolved administrator before making the edit. If this notice is unclear, please contact me or an uninvolved administrator before making any edits to the article. Violations of these sanctions or other Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or editorial norms may lead to immediate blocks. Editors should see WP:DR for further steps in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if disputes continue. Any uninvolved administrator may modify or vacate these restrictions at their discretion.
Best, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 06:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imposition of discretionary sanctions 

message: (For newer editors, "BRD" means roughly "edit Bodly, Revert, Discuss". Please read that essay.)
WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions are not to be taken lightly. Basically, future changes to the article will require wp:consensus. (As usual, you'll need to read the policy at that link to find out what that word means at Wikipedia.) For instance, I just made this edit. I hope no-one objects to it,
but it really should have a supporting citation. (I had a quick look but did not find one.) You could challenge that edit, or any other edit, by wp:reverting it.
Right now, the article is not particularly informative. Making it better will require finding sources, which takes hours if not days. (Topic we might add back in: cancer, Collingwood, Werribee, "Frightbats".) I have already spent more time on this article than I want, so I won't be doing that work for the foreseeable future. Unless someone else steps in (he said hopefully), I guess I'll have be more eventualist about things. 
Happy holidays, everyone! CWC 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What next? 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Blair's Law. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Blair's Law until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Blair's Law" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]