Talk:Oz (magazine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Oz (magazine) is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Australia To-do:

[edit] Merge

Oz (magazine) and OZ magazine clearly should be merged. I have no strong opinion on which direction the merge should go. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

All things being equal, I guess this is the better title, even though the other is the older article. OZ magazine will become a redirect. Merging the histories would only be confusing, so the history of the other branch of work is preserved at [[1]]. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Lacking access to good sources, and finding contradictions between the articles, I am removing certain details about the 1964 Australia trial which I believe may be wrong and cannot verify. Please, if someone has citation for these, indicate where they are verified from, and restore.

  • "Because the trio had been poorly advised and had pleaded guilty to an earlier minor charge, this second obscenity trial..."
    • What earlier minor charge? And I believe that 1964 was their first obscenity trial. I think someone got the '64 and '71 trials confused, but I'm ready to stand corrected.
  • "There was a major public outcry and benefit concerts, and the trio was finally acquitted on appeal after it was found that the magistrate had grossly misdirected the jury."
    • This is verbatim true about the '71 trial, but it is here without further detail on the '64 trial. If it is true, can someone please fill in a few details and restore?
  • Neville and Walsh received sentences of six months, although Sharp was given a reduced sentence of four months because the magistrate found him to be of 'reduced intelligence'.
    • Again, this sounds awfully like what happened in '71 (with Dennis's intelligence being impugned). I'm guessing the author got confused

Jmabel | Talk 03:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy tag

The above points have still not been addressed. Tyrenius 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trials of Oz

There were two trials - the first and the sixth issue of Oz magazine in Sydney were considered obscene by the Vice Squad. At the first trial the editors pleaded guilty, at the second they pleaded not guilty and appealed the original guilty verdict.

Sharp received a lesser sentence, I've never come across the idea that this was because of any imputed defect. I think it was because he was the art director rather than the editor, who were held to be more responsible.

Richard Neville's 'Hippie Hippie Shake' is a good source for details about dates, the trials and Oz in both Sydney and London.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.2.85 (talk • contribs) .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/z/_/Talk%7EOz_%28magazine%29_8ec2.html"