Talk:Andrew Bolt/Archive 1

message: This simply looks like a plug for some other persons forum. You don't need a contrast to describe the style of Andrew's forum, in fact it offers no insight at all into Andrew's forum. It's like saying "Andrew's forum is like this, and over here we have another forum that is different". Who cares? They didn't bring up the Wikipedia entry for "Andrew Bolt" to find out what kind of forum some other person is hosting. The subject is the Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, not forum styles.
: I wrote that. I wanted to contrast the low-key (and low-budget) nature of Andrew Bolt's forum with the high-profile and high-cost Webdiary project. It seems to me that Webdiary had very little connection with the rest of the SMH other than funding, and therefore has little significance to journalism, whereas Andrew Bolt is one of the pioneers of internet-enabled interactive journalism, which I suspect will radically reshape newspapers in the next few years. (My thinking has been influenced by reading Jeff Jarvis's blog and Jay Rosen's  blog, "PressThink".)
: On the other hand, I do agree that there is too much about Webdiary in the article at present.
: Chris Chittleborough 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance of Margo's Webdiary

message: Ok, I think it is probably time to get a better layout for this article, perhaps having one section for Bolt's views and one for criticism. The article I think now (and yes it is partly my fault) has no real coherence, and he is too controversial figure to have without stating both sides fairly. Any suggestions? Perhaps a better biography could be made as well
-Blindfreddy84
Can I have someone explain to me what "deconstruct" means. I don't think the link is it, but I am not sure. Xtra 00:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Article Layout 

message: Do not let Blindfreddy edit this article. Blindfreddy is as biased an individual as I have seen. Blindfreddy holds himself out here as someone who can objectively write but as can be seen on this site "http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/" blindfreddy is highly biased. (Not Anon)
Well done not anon. Holding true to your convictions. Why not put your name behind your attack? Of course I'm biased in my views. They are my views-that's why in line with the editing policy here on wikipedia I take note of them. And make sure I keep in line with the NPOV. Absolutely pathetic attack. -Blindfreddy84
Amazing I am accused of bias yet the first edit the particular user makes is
Andrew Bolt is widely regarded as Australia's most controversial - and most read - social commentator. Bolt he fearlessly cuts through the New Age myths and the activists' spin. But though his topics range from politics to film, and foreign affairs to education, Bolt's eye is always on one thing - values.-Blindfreddy84
I obtained that from Bolt's agents website. Maybe instead of peddling your bias you should check that out. Putting you in an editorial role here is like putting dracula in charge of the blood bank.
Should I remind the above mentioned that wikipedia has a stance of no copyrighted material?-Blindfreddy84 03:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: View of Personal Bias

message: I'm not even sure he's still on that program, but can't be stuffed looking it up right now.
*He was on this morning. Him and Marr had another stoush-the usual, each talking over each other. Each at the end admitting nothingBlindfreddy84 03:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Work - Insider program

message: Yeah, he's just saying what everyone thinks, etc.
====Quotes from Bolt====
"Isn't the evidence that some cultures -- Muslim Arab ones -- pose more problems than their importation at this rate is worth? Isn't multiculturalism making these problems worse?"  (The Herald Sun - Importing hatred, 20jul05.)
===Admirers===
Bolt has support from (so and so) because of (so and so) Blindfreddy84 03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boltie's Position

message: Bolt has support from (so and so) because of (so and so) Blindfreddy84 03:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Admirers

message: ----
*I'll be filling real content directly into this template.  I'd encourage you to do the same.  Please edit this as you would any mainpage (eg good edit comments), but if you make structural changes please discuss it here first. brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Chris Chittleborough 12:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have started an article for Tarcoola, South Australia. If the reference to Tarcoola in this article is the same town, please adjust redlink.SauliH 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarcoola Redlink

message: BoltWatch is accurately described as a site which publishes critical responses to Bolt's columns. It is relevant to the Andrew Bolt wikipedia entry and should be included as a link. (unsigned comment by Mrlefty)
The Boltwatch Blog is run by a barrister from Melbourne. That information is factual and should be in the Wikipedia article. There is no reason for it to be deleted. For MrLefty to come here and edit this posting is a conflict of interest. We shouldnt have people writing their own links. (unsigned comment by User:210.23.133.216)
However, it is not accurate to describe it as "anti-Bolt". The term "anti-Bolt" is extremely POV. (The word "critical" is clearly neutral and correct.) It is also not accurate to ascribe the site to anyone other than its owner, "MrLefty". (unsigned comment by Mrlefty)
There appears to be a campaign by vandals (such as "David Tan" of IP 210.23.133.216) to continually amend the BoltWatch link as "anti-Bolt" and to ascribe it to other people than the owner. (unsigned comment by Mrlefty)
I am David Tan. I have never amended the BoltWatch link to say it is Anti-Bolt. Lets just stick to facts shall we. (unsigned comment by User:210.23.133.216)
I am MrLefty. David Tan's allegations as to my identity are both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. They have no place on Wikipedia. I object to Mr Tan's allegations about my identity. He can refer to me as MrLefty.
Further, the fact that I run BoltWatch does not make me ineligible to edit the Andrew Bolt Wikipedia entry, and to suggest it does is laughable.
:It is not about edits to the Bolt article, but rather about the description of the link to your website. It is like, for example, John Howard editing the description in the link to his personal website, rather than letting someone who is not involved do it. Xtra 02:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BoltWatch 

message: I've protected the page for now. This is really silly, because so many edits over a silly little external link is really quite pointless. Please try to resolve the arguments here on the talk page. --bainer (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the editors here, please do not remove or edit other people's comments from talk pages. As for the issue at hand, on this page (which is about Andrew Bolt, and about nothing else) BoltWatch is simply linked to as an external link. A short description of the page is entirely adequate for this purpose. Going into great detail is not necessary. If anyone feels the need to go into great detail, consider starting a separate article about BoltWatch, keeping in mind policies on neutral point of view and verifiability, and also considering that there are strict notability guidelines for websites and the article may be deleted. --bainer (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Firstly, please sign your comments on talk pages. You can do so by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. Secondly, it's becoming apparent that these additions are not about making the article more factual. Rumours about the identity of a person who maintains a blog are clearly not relevant to Wikipedia. --bainer (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: There are numerous examples in this article of what should be factual information venturing into the realm of highly subjective, this is particularly the case in the last section, “On-line forum” and I'll start there and work my way up! 
For example, “ Bolt frequently 'snips' out large portions of contributions in an effort to keep comments to a reasonable length and remove swearing and personal abuse”. The statement  “ Bolt frequently 'snips' out large portions of contributions”  could be considered appropriate, however Bolt’s percieved motivations for doing so are purely subjective and such postulation of his  motivations is completely speculative.  I.E. Andrew Bolt’s motivations for frequent edits are unknown, they are for example, just as likely  to be motivated by a desire to shape debate into a format advantageous to himself and fitting the desired outcomes of the forum. Such speculations remain inappropriate in a factual description of Andrew Bolt and as such this statement should be removed until such time as it can be factually justified. 
The Stament "He has banned some flamers, partly in an attempt to limit the time it takes him to manage the forum."Again  speculates on Andrew Bolts motivations and cannot be factually justified. The  description ‘flamers’ it could be construed carry associations that are inappropriate in this article,  for example who defines what constiutes a flame and what is a vigorous statement of dissenting opinion? I would suggest this interpretation is subjective.   It may be stated that Andrew Bolt or editors have banned some forum users from posting but in the interests  of remaining objective the article should stay clear of idle speculation as to why they have been banned.  
  
The summation statement “Despite its low budget format, the forum is an pioneering experiment in Internet-enabled interactive journalism” cannot possibly be justified!  i.e. “despite it’s low budget format”  ,  what does this actually mean?  And what is the purpose of the statement in the article?
How does the desire to contrast with the other “high” budget forum that shall remain nameless, further the article?   Does the author possess as factual data the budget costing of such ventures? Secondly would the relative cost of the forum impact on our factual understanding of Andrew Bolt?  If not this statement would seem to be an attempt to project a personal viewpoint .
The second part of this statement “the forum is an pioneering experiment in Internet-enabled interactive journalism” is preposterous! It could hardly be claimed that Andrew Bolt’s web developers were amongst the first to develop a feedback loop/forum in their online articles!  How does it differ from a blog for instance?    
-slain
The preceding comment was actually added by User:220.239.76.227. There is no User:Slain on Wikipedia.
: It would be better if you had read Bolt's forum for a while before posting this.
: He does snip, and he does ban people, and he (usually, if not always) explains why on the forum itself. The article as it stands merely takes Andrew Bolt at his word. This is not speculation, this is reporting. (We could add "claims" or a synonym to all these sentences, but that would make the article imply that Bolt is a habitual liar. BTW, is this what you want it to say? In the unlikely event that you have some clear evidence contradicting Bolt's claims, you need to produce it now if you want to be taken seriously.)
: Bolt has repeatedly stated that managing the forum takes much more time than he anticipated or can spare, that he spends the minimum time possible on it (eg., sometimes not reading long submissions), and that he uses snipping and banning to save time. If the forum had permalinks, I would have included at least one URL for one of these statements.
: I do not recall Bolt using the term "flamer", but it does succintly represent his categorisation of the people he has banned. (Exception: Frederick Toben was banned after one submission, without ever flaming. Does this upset you? Really, I'd like to know.)
: By "low-budget format", I mean that the forum does not have permalinks, has no navigation or search facilities, and is restricted to plain text rather than using BBCode or something similar. Feel free to expand the three-word description, if you insist. (I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds the lack of permalinks really annoying.)
: Of course many other journalists have comment-enabled blogs and forums for feedback via the Internet, especially technology journalists. But Bolt is a political columnist for a tabloid. As far as I am aware, there has been only one journalism-based political forum of this scale in Australia: Webdiary, which was quite separate from the SMH's print operations. Most other journalist blogs and forums are an attempt to move from print to the web, but Bolt's forum is tied to his print journalism. Therefore, I thought (and still think) it accurate to describe the forum as "a pioneering effort"—which is, after all, quite a modest assertion. (But I would certainly not want to call it "an pioneering effort".)
: For more information, read this Talk page, especially the "Relevance of Margo's Webdiary" section. I strongly suggest you read this old version of the article first.
: Chris Chittleborough 18:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: On-line forum section &lsquo;subjective&rsquo;

message: User:Mcnab added an in-line link to http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/s9lygo.boltkhalid.htm, which comes from "Scum at the top", "Australia's Journal of Political Character Assassination" (!) and was written in April 2004. I've deleted it, and suggested at User_talk:Mcnab that such a link should go in "External Links", if anywhere. Personally, I don't think Wikipedia should even link to web pages like this one (see Talk:Brian_Leiter for a similar case with the opposite politics). —Chris Chittleborough 13:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to "Political Character Assassination" of Bolt 

message: I just changed the bit at the end that calls his forum 'interactive journalism' to interactive discussion. This seems a lot more appropriate. I also changed 'an' to 'a'. Somebody wrote 'an' when they shouldn't have... Uh... Yeah... DarkSideOfTheSpoon 00:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) Oops, that "an" was probably me. (2) I called it "interactive journalism" because Bolt is using the forum for feedback and discussion concerning published columns, and suggestions for new columns. (I would have given examples if only the @(&*^#! forum software used permalinks.) I think it's significant the readers are discussing the columns with Bolt as well as with other; that's what makes it more than an "emails to the editor" page.) (3) Bolt is doing "internet-enabled journalism" in another way: he gets material from (or rather via) blogs. So, while I wasn't all that happy with my original wording, I still think we could do better. Ideas and edits welcome. —Chris Chittleborough 10:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I don't know if chatting with his readers is a form of journalism. That is why I changed it. You can write "internet enabled journalism" to describe the act of him using the discussion board as a source of news, but I don't think at its base level it should be described as journalism though. Whatever but, you can make it whatever you feel is right. :) DarkSideOfTheSpoon 04:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactive... 

message: In a profile for skeleton sport athlete Michelle Steele, she describes as a role model Andrew Bolt. A bit of preliminary googling seems to suggest that there's a Andrew Bolt involved in surf lifesaving who lives in Queensland (not very close to Melbourne), and I suspect that the two are different people. A pity, as it'd really put the death in right wing death beast. Andjam 10:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unrelated Andrew Bolt? 

message: Currently, external links has 
*A site watching Andrew Bolt, by MrLefty
*A site watching Iain Hall, who watches MrLefty
but not Iain Hall's site. If Iain Hall's site is not noteworthy, why would Iain Hall watch be? Alternatively, how about removing all the watch sites? Andjam 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see you watching him watching Bolt 

message: There are too many things in the article lacking citations. In a controversial topic like Andrew Bolt, this is especially problematic. Some of the language about the holey ambulance, written by a new wikipedian, may need rewriting for more neutral language. Andjam 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific about what you think lacks citation? Can you identify aspects of the ambulance incident that breaches NPOV? And let's not be hasty about judging a "new wikipedian".MrMonroe 13:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any citations in the ambulance section. Also, the text "unsubstantiated and questionable", "confirming" lean towards supporting a certain opinion. If someone hasn't heard of blogs before and want to know how reliable they are, they can go to the entry on blogs. Noting that The Australian "spared" stablemate Bolt is at this stage original research - the editorial didn't criticise Tim Blair either, and he worked for Packer. Another thing that needs citation: "and is a relentless critic of ABC broadcaster Phillip Adams" (Adams isn't just ABC - he also writes for News Ltd). Andjam 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed those issues you raise. The exception is my line about Adams being a frequent target of Bolt, a claim that, yes, is an observation and for which there is probably little external written evidence, apart from numerous mentions at Blair's blog etc. Is it original research to make this claim? Is it any more original than naming TV programs on which Bolt appears, or naming his wife? Because you added the "not verified" tag only after my edit last night, are you happy to remove it now I've edited the specific points you identified as not verified? Thanks.MrMonroe 02:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not enough citations 

message: In copyediting the bit about Captain Ken Blyth criticizing Bolt, I noticed a problem. The article said (emphasis added):
:[Blyth] disputes that soldiers on board the tanker fired over Bolt’s head as he tried to flee in his boat (crewmen on the vessel told Blyth soldiers fired up in the air); and also that Bolt refused to sign a confession that he had made up his earlier story (Blyth claims Bolt did sign a statement admitting his story was "seriously inconsistent with facts" and wrote an apology).
I'd guess that the second bolded section should read "and also claims that". Not having access to the book, I've played it safe and removed the bit about the confession. Please do not restore it unless you have read the book.
In fact, I added a  tag in the hope that someone will please read that book and check that our reporting is accurate.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of Captain Blyth's comments are accurate: it was Bolt who had claimed in his news report that he had refused to sign a confession. From page 92 to 94 Blyth deals with his encounters with Bolt. Page 94: "Contrary to his account, Bolt signed an apology" .... "A Reuters report, quoting Mr Li saying that Bolt had signed a statement admitting that his story was 'seriously inconsistent with facts', was true. Bolt's irresponsible and inaccurate reports were faxed all around South-East Asian embassies and consulates and did a lot of damage. I would say that the hostility they aroused set relations between me and the Chinese officials back a certain distance." .... "Luckily, Bolt was not believed."
Cheers MrMonroe 03:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petro Pirates 

message: User  (who is new here; please note WP:BITE) has pointed out in an edit comment that we had too much in the article about Downer, Rudd, Chulov etc that did not belong here. She's right. (Confession: most of the irrelevant stuff came from me.) So I've tried to cut out all the non-Bolt stuff. Corrections, comments, etc are all welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambulance controversy pruning 

message: The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I have reinstated the image of the Petro Pirates book. If you want it removed, can you please discuss the reasons? So far just one objection has been raised, but I'm not sure it's strong enough to delete the book cover.
The issue of the relevance of images on articles isn't something I can find a clear answer to at Wikipedia, so I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy in the hope it may generate some comment. Please feel free to say what you think there ... or here, of course. I've explained at that discussion why I think the image should be used, but reasonable man that I am, I'm open to debate.MrMonroe 00:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the image. I disagree with you about the notability of the author, however. The story was front-page news in Australia when it happened, and Bolt gained great exposure for it. If the subject of those articles later claimed Bolt's account was fanciful, then that certainly becomes relevant in an article about Bolt. This has little reference to the cover pic, however, and I've removed it after just brief discussion at the Image Use talk page. MrMonroe 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petro Pirates image 

message: Should Lefty really have a say in this?  
His sole purpose is to keep people who look up Andrew Bolt to not then stumble on boltwatch-watch. 
--Anthony B 09:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares about either blog? The blogosphere is not a good resource for information and analysis anyway, except trivial information. With Andrew Bolt's columns, most readers can make up their minds about the man's credibility after reading one of them once. Rintrah 19:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of interest Lefty Style 

message: It seems that this article goes way over-board in detail, that it strings together many random statements. The paragraphs do not cohere well, and together give the article a tedious length. For instance, why does this article need a section on Bolt's online forum? Does the article on Rupert Murdoch need to report his every endeavour? 
Can someone rewrite this article for structure and succinctness? Thank you. RedRabbit1983 03:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prolixity

message: We use two of Bolt's 2003 columns as references:
*"Hitler: Green guru", Herald Sun, 17 July 2003, page 21
*"Dangerous fanatic", Herald Sun, 27 October 2003, page 19
I've found the original URLs for those columns here: http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6762768%255E25717,00.html and http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,7675096%255E25717,00.html respectively. However, those link are now dead. Can anyone find cached copies? CWC 10:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to refs 

message: I just undid the last addition because it read like an opinion piece and had no references (much like an Andrew Bolt article). I personally believe Bolt to be one of the worst journalists in Melbourne due to his poor "ranting" writing style, his complete distortion of facts and figures and his biased attacks on anyone who he doesn't agree with. I would be happy to put a similar paragraph back in if it was referenced. I also object the term "redneck" that was used. Master z0b (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in pretty clear violation of WP:NOR and WP:BLP and arguably only just short of WP:VAND.. good revert Jaimaster (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid section 

message: I found this in Words to Avoid:
Insist, maintain, protest, contend, feelThese words often make the party appear defensive: "Salafis insist that Salafism is not a purely Arabian movement, and regard some clerics and scholars outside Arabia as proto-Salafis or Salafi-influenced."
The following sentences are in breach of this policy (emphasis added):
“Popovic contended she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program.”“Bolt emerged from the Supreme Court after the jury verdict, insisting his column had been accurate and that the mixed verdict was a victory for free speech.”“Manne gave him a list of 12 names which, Bolt contends, includes children rescued from sexual abuse and removed for other humanitarian reasons.”
The policy says that ‘alleged’ can be appropriate for legal cases such as the Popovic example, but recommends ‘asserted’. As for the Bolt examples, ‘stating’ and ‘states’ would be more congruent with the guidelines. They would read as:
“Popovic asserted she had in fact shaken their hands to congratulate them on having completed a rehabilitation program.”“Bolt emerged from the Supreme Court after the jury verdict, stating his column had been accurate and that the mixed verdict was a victory for free speech.”“Manne gave him a list of 12 names which, Bolt states, includes children rescued from sexual abuse and removed for other humanitarian reasons.”
The sentences are obviously retrofitted, but they were after all written using “Words that may advance a point of view”. I’m also thinking of bringing the usage/overusage of the word ‘claim’ more in line with policy, but I’ll absolutely discuss that in depth here in the article’s talk page first. Give me some feedback on these suggested amendemnts and we’ll see how we go. Martin0001 (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, I'm making the three amendments now. Martin0001 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words to Avoid 

message: After seeing this request I've done some cleanup on the article, references need to still be expanded into complete citations etc which I'll address over the next couple of days. Please remember that the article is about the living person and not a place to air greivences about his writing style or articles. Also I suggest that editors refresh their understanding of WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot more neutral already. Could it be enhanced by retitling/integrating the "Controversy and criticism" section? Perhaps if there was a section on "Career", that covered the good and the bad, instead of a whole section focusing on the bad? Somno (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleanup 

message: Is it true that A. Bolt keeps close watch on his own wiki page, and defends it's (pro-Bolt) content vigourously, and dilutes negative commentary? 203.208.77.97 (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that assertion is utter bullshit, like most things that Bolt-haters say about him. CWC 07:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silliness 

message: How did he develop his upper class Australian accent?
:Obviously from living here. How did you develop your atitude?
::That doesn't explain the accent; the question was obviously about the Varieties of Australian English, not about why he has an Australian accent as opposed to a Chinese one etc.; and what attitude?
His accent comes from his dutch parents. He sounds like dutch people that learn english very well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.81.21 (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Accent

message: Does anyone have a photo that we could use for Bolt?
ThanksJackthart (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Bolt large m1718325.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The IPA pronunciation listed for the subject's nickname 'Bolta' (/ˈkɒʃi/) is incorrect, and reads "Koshi", which is the pronunciation of the popular nickname of another Australian television presenter, David Koch. The correct IPA is /ˈbɔːtə/. The pronunciation respelling does not need changing. 
Khovert (talk) 08:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:21pm • 10:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Khovert, 19 June 2011 

message: Andrew Bolt was not found guilty under "section 18 (c)" as has been reported by incompetent Age journos and included without verification in the "Litigation" section, but under "section 18C" (see the decision, or this report in The Australian.) 124.190.106.151 (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence intended, user - but, can you please say what EXACTLY needs changing?  - thanks,  Chzz  ►  07:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to section 18 (c) needs to be changed to "section 18C". I do not know how I can be clearer. I didn't ask anyone to change x, I specified what was wrong and what it should say. Must I specify exact line numbers or something? 124.190.106.151 (talk) 09:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thank you for your contribution. Perhaps you could be more diplomatic in your comments about journalists and other editors' efforts. It was breaking news. People make mistakes. HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual error in article 

message: Please change "On 28 September 2011 Bolt was found guilty of offences under section 18 (c) of the Racial Discrimination Act." to "On the 28th Septermber 2011 Bolt was found to have contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act." Please leave the link. Because, in accordance with section 18C (1) note, whilst it may be unlawful what he did, it is not a criminal offence unless expressly stated in Part IV of the Act, which I don't think it does. So to be correct, Bolt is not guilty of offences. Instead, Justice Bromberg found Bolt to have "engaged in conduct which contravened s18C of the RDA." This was taken from the judgment Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103. 
Thank you
Wildvet (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What is in the article bears a close correspondence to what the source says? Do you have a source we can reference for your wording? HiLo48 (talk) 10:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilt or innocence is associated with criminality. There is a difference between a criminal offence and breaching or contravening a provision such as section 18C in the Racial Discrimination Act. So as I understand it, if it was considered to be a criminal offence then yes, he would be guilty, however, it is not and so he has, as the judge has decided, contravened the legislation. Wildvet (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Apologies, forgot to add that (in answer to your question) the source came from the judgment itself which I originally included in my request as above (Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103) which is available online - http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html and I also included a direct quote which can be found at paragraph 453. Wildvet (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Your text and that link are now in the article. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Wildvet, 28 September 2011 

message: Can we get a citation on that marriage status?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJMaher90 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage status 

message: Although bolt rejects the label "right wing" it is cleary evident that he is in fact a clear advocate of "right wing" policies.
203.134.137.66 (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles must depend on what reliable sources say. If you can find a reliable source that describes him as right wing, we could include something in that area. My view is that it's more accurate to say that he writes material that panders to less well informed, conservative parts of society, and gets paid for doing so. Whether what he writes accurately reflects what he really believes is hard to tell. After all, we don't know who he votes for. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 July 2012 

message: Andrew Bolt is asking questions on his blog about Google roboinfo, which states he is an associate editor of the Herald-Sun. We say he was. However, this is a recent and unsourced editor. Personally, I have no idea, but I really feel we need an explicit source, either way. --Pete (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Associate editor 

message: Why is The Bolt Report mentioned as a side issue in the middle of a sentence. It is the most watched weekend political show. This is a contemporary, accurate statement. Why is it a side-issue statement?
The Bolt Report is watched by far more viewers than Insiders for example. I invite people to review Barrie Cassidy's entry, and compare the mention of Insiders vs The Bolt Report.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.146.70 (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Mention of The Bolt Report 

message: Andrew is a permanent guest on the 2GB Nights with Steve Price Programme
Malcolmpruys (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, but please provide a source next time. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 19 February 2013 

message: A user account named icmiaus has recently added an external link to a bolt bio at a commercial speakers bureau, icmi. Given WP:ELNO, and the adequate referencing of this article, as well as issues arround the nature of the icmiaus account, i removed the link and left an explanation at the user talk. Since then the same account has reinserted the link without discussion. Anyone else want to buy into this discussion before i revert again? Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it per WP:ELNO which says: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:  Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."  The link does not provide any info not already contained in the article and is primarily promotional in content.-- — Keithbob • Talk •  15:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam / external link 

message: After reading the litigation references and orders from the federal judge regarding the Bolt articles. "It's so hip to be black"/"White is the New Black" and "White Fellas in the Black". The judgement prevents republishing of these articles. On this basis I have removed the links to the articles but left the titles. CamV8 (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court orders 

message: In 2006, Manne provided Bolt with the names of 260 children removed, including in Queensland (including evidence that under the Industrial Schools and Reformatory Act of 1865, being Aboriginal was in itself evidence of neglect) and The Northern Territory (who were never taken before a Court).  In the same year Bolt was provided by Manne with extensive documentary evidence, including contemporaneous written evidence from people involved in the formulation and carrying out of these policies, of the racial basis for the removal of children of mixed descent from their aboriginal families.  Bolt has continued to publish articles ignoring or misrepresenting this evidence.  Robert Manne, ""Name Ten": The Journalism of Andrew Bolt, The Monthly, 17/10/11, http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2011/10/24/1319413522/name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elstitch (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stolen generations 

message: User:John Nevard, who seems to want to conduct a vendeatta against me (he called one of my recent edits to this article "grammatical butchery", after I accidentally omitted a word), is determined to add the words "fair-skinned Aborigine" as an adjectival clause to the word complainants in the article. 
I have reverted the change twice, the second time suggesting that it was unhelpful, controversial language, and suggested that he instigate a discussion on it if he was so determined to use those words. He simply reverted back without discussion, so here we are.
Apart from this editor's appalling manners, adding that clause appears to me to be reinforcing Bolt's point, and pushing Bolt's argument. I think the words are unnecessary. They are certainly controversial. The article would lose nothing if they weren't there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet, the judge in the case concerned, and all media sources reporting on the decision, consider this phrase to be notable. Unlike some irrational Redflex employees, I don't pretend that Wikipedia should ignore Wikipedia policies because of some personal agendas. Nevard (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the expression is notable. It's the words Bolt used to mock and condemn the complainants. We must not do the same thing. (What is Redflex?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The judge (Justice Bromberg), in his ruling against Bolt, consistently used the term "light-skinned Aborigines" to identify the group being targeted by the discrimination. Therefore I don't think the term in itself has to be derogatory. I would struggle to find a more neutral term to describe those people who felt themselves to be the targets of Bolt's comments, i.e., those who have light skin and identify as Aboriginal. Having said that, though, I don't think it is necessary to use this term in the given context. The section already makes it clear who the complainants are. Melissza (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the public interest in this case, and public perception that it lies in large part behind the current Federal Government's intention to amend section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/george-brandis-to-repeal-bolt-laws-on-racial-discrimination-20131108-2x50p.html does it not merit its own heading, for example "Breach of the Racial Discrimination Act"?  The paragraph should include the fact that there are exemptions for political speech contained in section 18D, but that they were found not to apply because of "the manner in which the articles were written, including that they contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language" - BROMBERG J.  Eatock v Bolt [2011] FCA 1103 (28 September 2011)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elstitch (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "fair-skinned Aborigine" 

message: It's been seven years, according to the template at the head of the article, since the poor quality of sources was noted. I've just gone through and removed a whole bunch of primary sources. For a BLP, we really need good reliable secondary sources. Looking at the article history, I have to wonder what all these editors have been doing - ignoring the template and adding in more of the same? --Pete (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven years 

message: Due to some of his "interesting" ideas some people think he has the wrong surname.Frank Hargrave (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt, but we're unlikely to add that to the article until it becomes very public and is reported in reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Nut 

message: Looking for numbers. Bolt is claimed (by his newspaper) to run "Australia’s most-read political blog". That's nice, but reasonably current third-party numbers would be good. 
I don't doubt the claim, as I can't think of any other Australian political blog with a similar impact.
Andrew Bolt is Australia's most controversial - and most read - social commentator, putting his finger on the hottest of hot-button issues. Andrew Bolt is a columnist with Melbourne's Herald Sun, Australia's biggest-selling daily newspaper, writing twice a week on politics, culture and society. He is also a regular commentator on 2GB  and Channel 9's Today,  as well as running Australia's most popular political blog site.
He seems like the ultimate political insider. Influential and prolific; with a regular syndicated column in the nation's largest selling daily newspapers, television and radio segments, and a blog that receives two million hits a month. But in Andrew Bolt's mind he's an outsider, and he always has been.
Bolt occasionally mentions the number of monthly page impressions he receives - over a million - and that represents about a quarter of a million distinct readers, which is a very respectable figure, and one doubtless helping keep Herald-Sun afloat.
I've looked at various blog indices, but they reckon Australia's most popular blogs are cooking blogs and stay-at-home-mother blogs and the like. Figures seem to be scarce. Can anybody provide a good source? --Pete (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog readership 

message: Looking at two successive reversions by AlanS, I'm seeing edit summaries of:
* edit as per talk consensus and
* That is the exact wording that you agreed to in talk discussion. Cease edit warring.
In neither case is the edit summary truthful. I'm certainly seeing no consensus amongst the four editors contributing, and the version AlanS claims I support does not (obviously) have my support. Perhaps AlanS could heed his own advice and refrain from deleting against consensus while discussion is ongoing? --Pete (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't write "Thanks, CWC! I'll see if I can hunt up some cites."? AlanS (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could read what I said above. Both of your edit summaries are untruthful. Are you seriously telling me that when an editor makes an edit away from a given version, he or she is actually supporting the previous version rather than the new one? Despite the evidence to the contrary? I don't know what your perception is, but it is wrong. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: AlanS repeatedly deleting notable section

message: Per WP:BLP I am removing recent additions implying Bolt did something illegal. The court case was resolved through an out-of-court settlement, so any imputation of wrong-doing shouldn't be included unless he's agreed to apologise or something as part of the settlement. The text being inserted is also biased and such a close paraphrase (lifting quotes from the article) as to raise copyright concerns. --Surturz (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of court settlement 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Andrew Bolt. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.3aw.com.au/shows/nightssteveprice
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page is protected from vandalism, but perhaps an additional line should be added about how Bolt has auctioned off the damaged suit he was wearing during the assault. He raised $8,500 to be donated to the Very Special Kids charity run in Melbourne for children at the end of their life.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.26.103 (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2017 Melbourne assault 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Andrew Bolt. 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/20140525200241/http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-andrew-bolt-and-defamation/ to http://lawgovpol.com/case-study-andrew-bolt-and-defamation/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bolt is seen as one [of] the nation's most influential and controversial political commentators.[3][4]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BF90:C1F0:11EC:7FDC:461B:BD0D (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Thanks. I've fixed it. CWC 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small words missing--an increasingly common mistake 

message: The use of the expression 'denier' is an unfair ad hominem smear employed to attack the character of the opponent and intended to close rational debate. 
Users of the 'denier' expression cannot be trusted. They are either actually ignorant, actively ignorant or mendacious and should be denied any perception of authority. They should apologize and exempt themselves from debate on the grounds of incapacity.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.108.153 (talk) 19:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has denied something, how is calling that someone a denier an ad hominem smear (personal attack)? If someone denies the majority of scientific or historical evidence in regard to a subject, how is the assertion that they are a denier then a personal attack? Are you sure you understand fallacies as they relate to reasoning? You appear to be making an argument from fallacy rather than disproving or making a logically valid counter argument, the term ad hominem appears to be used as a smear itself in this case. How is calling a denier exactly what they are a personal attack? you need to explain the fault in the reasoning lest you make an argument from fallacy where you claim your argument is correct because the opposing argument contains fallacious reasoning. Fallacious reasoning does not in itself make an arguement false, a conclusion is never false simply because the reasoning is, you must still prove your assertion to be true. Just saying. Bacondrum (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denier