Talk:Andrew Bolt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's fair use policy almost never permits the use of "fair use" images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Flag
Portal
 Andrew Bolt is maintained by 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Wikipedian A subject of this article, Mrlefty, has edited Wikipedia as User:Mrlefty.
  • (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2005 – February 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Andrew Bolt article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies


Contents


[edit] Link to "Political Character Assassination" of Bolt

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)

[edit] Interactive...

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)

(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)
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)

[edit] Bolt's on-line forum

The putting-things-into-context sentence at the end of that section now reads:

Despite its low budget format, the forum was a pioneering experiment in Internet-aided "interactive journalism".

Now let me explain why I wrote that.

When it started in May 2005, Bolt's forum was a pioneering experiment in a journalist-turned-columnist using the internet to interact with readers. At that stage, very few newspapers had done more than publish email addresses and accept Letters to the Editor via email. I know of at least one newspaper that was ahead of Bolt, the Knoxville News-Sentinel in Tennessee, but I'm not aware of any others.

Actually, I suspect that the low-budget approach was important to getting the forum started relatively early: while other newspapers thought about creating an ambitious IT project, Bolt and the Herald-Sun just pulled something off a shelf and got stuck in. The down-side is that the forum doesn't have permalinks, which makes sustained discussion much harder.

Re the discussion above about whether the forum is "journalism": it's really "writing a column", which (1) is a kind of journalism but (2) is not the first thing "journalism" brings to mind. I've tried to think of something better and failed ("interactive op-ed journalism"? "interactive column-writing"?). Comments, ideas and edits all welcome!

Cheers, CWC(talk) 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how you can call what Bolt does with his forum "journalism". Largely, it's just a glorified letters-page in which Bolt responds to his critics with a scathing "you're obviously a hate-filled lefty" retort, and to his supporters with an incredibly profound "Thanks, Mike." Hardly journalism. And hardly "pioneering". Plenty of other media organisations had online letters-pages and "fora" long before Bolt.

I just don't think the sentence adds anything to the entry. It's impossible to demonstrate whether it's "pioneering" or not, and more importantly, it doesn't add anything of substance to the wikipedia entry. The paragraph describes the forum in sufficient detail already. Surely that's enough. Mrlefty 02:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An unrelated Andrew Bolt?

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)

[edit] I see you watching him watching Bolt

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)

I'd say to one level. You've got Bolt's blog; you've got a (long-standing) blog responding to it. Further watchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatchwatch blogs are hardly required. No "Iain Hall watch". No "Boltwatch watch". Just one from each side. (The one from the Bolt side is obviously simply Bolt's own blog.) MrLefty 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accent

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?

[edit] Boltwatchwatch

does it belong here? I think it does if Boltwatch is here. Xtra 07:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. How many iterations of response and counter-response do you want?

One level, a site which responds to the subject of the wikipedia entry's columns, is reasonable. ANOTHER level, responding to the response, is just silly. By that logic, we'd have to allow a BoltWatchWatchWatch, and then a BoltWatchWatchWatchWatchWatch etc.

One level at most.

The BoltWatch site is a reference largely for people who tend not to agree with Bolt's columns. Those who do agree with those columns hardly need another "watch" site - they've got Bolt's own "blog", and can submit their positive comments there.MrLefty 07:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense. The Boltwatch site (written by the above user) does not debunk or expose anything about Bolts articles. The Boltwatch-watch site is more about highlighting the ad-hominem attacks and shoddy practices of the Boltwatch site. Prester John 04:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A "subject" of this article??

What's that warning doing up the top of the discussion page? "|A subject of this article, Mrlefty, has edited Wikipedia as User:Mrlefty."

I'm not a subject of this article! MrLefty 07:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are ... or at least one of your blogs is.   Woops, now you aren't in the article any more.   Oh, wait, BoltWatch is back in.   No, now it's gone again.
[/joking]
But seriously folks, we probably need to discuss whether to mention BoltWatch (and, if so, BoltWatchWatch) in some detail, not just in Edit Summaries. (I know. We've gone through this before, and it was quite tedious enough the first time. I apologise in advance.)
Here's a somewhat strawy argument for mentioning it, as a starting point. Please supply other arguments, restate this one properly, etc.
Good encyclopedia articles tell readers where to go for more details. BoltWatch is the place to go for more criticism of Bolt, so we should link to it.
Regards, CWC(talk) 12:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we link to BoltWatch? BoltWatchWatch?

(Subheading added belatedly by CWC(talk) 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC))

And just the same, Boltwatchwatch is the place to go for critisism of Boltwatch and we are not going to create a Boltwacth article, so this is the place for it. It is either both or neither. That is my position. Xtra 00:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As you point out, there is no BoltWatch entry on Wikipedia. If there were, then by all means include the BoltWatchWatch link as "a place to go for criticism of BoltWatch". In the meantime, Bolt's blog is linked, appropriately. One critical site (I'd suggest the most significant critical site relating to Bolt) is mentioned. That should be it. If User: Xtra's stance is accepted, then the article would be weighed down with countless versions of "watch" blogs. It would be ridiculous.
The situation with ONE response blog provides balance. (The Andrew Bolt side is clearly amply represented by Bolt's blog itself.) Watch blogs of subjects are appropriate on Wikipedia (if longstanding and consistent) but not watch blogs of watch blogs.Garth M 07:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, verry strange. New user, straight into a POV war. Sounds orchestrated to me. It is either both or none. Xtra 10:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You've argued that before, and been overruled. One watch blog = reasonable. Another watch "watch" blog = not reasonable. And also ridiculous. Garth M 10:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I was not overruled. That is a figment of your imagination. There was never any consensus to remove that link, just Mr Lefty and you - a new user who has come straight into a POV war. Please reade wikipedia:policy. You are trying to POV push and it will not be tolerated. Xtra 11:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, everyone, slow down. I only put that "strawy" argument up as a discussion starter. Other arguments for and against would be very welcome.
Tell you what, let's try to reach consensus on whether to mention http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/, and then decide about http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/. (I'm assuming that no-one advocates mentioning BoltWatch-Watch but not BoltWatch. If I'm wrong, please say so.)
Now, surely someone has better arguments in favour of mentioning BoltWatch than my spur-of-the-moment effort. Arguments against are just as welcome.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC) who also added indentation to some earlier comments
BoltWatch is, as CWC has pointed out, the primary source for responses to Bolt's articles. Of course it's relevant. Wikipedia's NPOV policy involves including links from both sides of a political divide. In this case, there's the Bolt side, and the non-Bolt side. Bolt's blog is included as representative of the Bolt side. BW is included as representative of the non-Bolt side. (Although, in fairness, it's more "critical" in the real sense of the word than "anti-".)
BWW is simply an extra, unnecssary layer. Its function is perfectly taken up by Bolt's blog itself. In fact, its author regularly posts his remarks about BW to Bolt's actual blog. Clearly, BWW does not provide information or criticism in Bolt's favour which cannot already be found in the two already-existing links. Thus, its inclusion is neither necessary nor deserved. (Note: this dispute has only arisen because "niceperson" (Iain Hall), the owner of that blog, recently created a wikipedia account to add it to the Andrew Bolt entry.)
Finally, if user Xtra's philosophy were adopted, Wikipedia would then have to include a BoltWatchWatchWatch blog, then a BoltWatchWatchWatchWatch blog, and so on. Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere. I'd argue it should be drawn at ONE blog critical of the subject, provided there's a "pro" site to argue in the subject's favour.
Wikipedia should only be including links which are directly relevant to the subject of an article. Not merely relevant to another site about the subject of an article. BoltWatch is about Andrew Bolt. BoltWatchWatch is about BoltWatch. The former should be included on a wikipedia article about Andrew Bolt. The latter should only be included if there were a wikipedia article about BoltWatch. (Which there isn't, and which there shouldn't be.) Garth M 22:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BoltWatch: Yes; BoltWatchWatch: ?

No-one has objected to linking to http://boltwatch.blogspot.com/, so I'll claim we've reached consensus on one question.

Now for the harder question: should we link to http://boltwatch-watch.blogspot.com/ ? It seems to me that the key issue is relevance. For example, would a Wikipedia reader who had never heard of Andrew Bolt learn something useful about Mr Bolt from reading BWW? (Clearly the reader would learn that Bolt has an energetic defender, but that's neither suprising nor all that useful.)

I don't read BWW (or BW!) regularly, but a quick skim of the current front page of BWW indicates that BWW does discuss Bolt, but not as much as it discusses BW and allied blogs So I'm currently quite neutral on this question. OTOH, I just emailed the BWW blogger to tell him about this discussion.

There is a reason for not linking BWW which at lease Wikipedia editor will care deeply about: linking BWW will make it much harder "Mr Lefty" to stay anonymous. However, (1) Bolt has also revealed Mr Lefty's name and occupation on his blog (as have many other Australian bloggers) and (2) this issue is not relevant to Wikipedia.

Hey, I told you this was going to be tedious. Cheers(?), CWC(talk) 12:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think either should be linked to. Blogs are questionable at best (per WP:EL and WP:NOT) and under absolutely no circumstances should Mr Lefty be adding his own blog to the article. It's just absurd. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I argue that BW qualifies under WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to item 4.
I agree that for Mr Lefty to add a link to BW would be in dubious taste. However, as someone who often agrees with Bolt and rarely with Mr Lefty, I'll happily add it myself. Regards, CWC(talk) 13:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
'Neutral content' — like the premises used in arguments against Bolt? I almost always disagree with Bolt, vehemently, but I do not see how this qualifies. Blogs should never be added unless they are written by experts with useful information. Wikipedia needs better links than blogs; we should not be reducing it to blog level. Anyway, including BW has the annoying consequence of BWW appearing, then a silly edit war ensuing. If MrLefty wrote a notable book, then maybe information on his book should be linked to. Rintrah 17:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. "Boltwatch" by "Mr Lefty" (Jeremy Sear) doesn't even address Bolts arguments but instead is a website that relies on ad-hominem attacks. Neither the site or its author are of any notability. "Boltwatch-watch" even less so. Prester John 11:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest Lefty Style

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)

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)

For what its worth, I tend to think that a link to Boltwatch is not in the spirit of NPOV. I feel that Boltwatch is very singular POV. Surely any criticisms of Andrew Bolt could be found via more mainstream and, lets face it, reliable sources. No offense Mr Lefty, but you commenting on Andrew bolt here as well as your own blog seems a little against the spirit of the wikipedia guidlines. im sure there are plenty of people who find Andrew Bolts articles to be worthy of criticism. However, having said all that, I also find it interesting that anyone could find Andrew Bolt worthy of an "Anti" site. Perhaps that is worth a mention in relation to how much attention this one columnist gets.Jampire1 06:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough citations

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) (Typo fixed Andjam 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Sources for Bolt column on Lebanese ambulance incident

Bolt clearly used zombietime.com's essay as a source for his column. Earlier debate on this issue can be found at User talk:MrMonroe.MrMonroe 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Bolt also used photographs released by Associated Press, a world famous, and world renowned, news organisation. This should be given priority. Prester John 11:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh, what's your point here? I'll check the clipping of his actual column when I get a chance, but as I recall his column about the ambulance incident used a picture taken from the Zombietime website. That website, as discussed at User talk:MrMonroe, was the primary source of his comments that day. Whether those pictures were subsequently, or earlier, available through AP is immaterial: out of the dozens of images AP would have supplied to newspapers following the incident, Bolt selected one that appeared at Zombietime. Why? Because ZT had already formulated the theory and assembled the evidence that he then used in his column, and to which Downer had referred a day or two earlier.
Prester John's comments urging that the noting the use of AP images "be given priority" suggest a wish to give Bolt's comments that day some additional authenticity or validity. Possibly he feels that the obvious (indeed, acknowledged) source of Bolt's opinions that day – Zombietime – is less than reliable. MrMonroe 05:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that Prester John is here to lie. Please do not do that.
Please note well: Wikipedia policy requires us to take the subjects of articles at their word unless there is substantial, reliable, well-sourced evidence to the contrary. MrMonroe, if you can't operate within this policy, you should immediately stop editing articles about people you desire to discredit, which obviously includes this one.
Please note that zombie's essay (http://www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance/) uses photos from MSM websites, Getty Images, etc. It does not use photos zombie took. The phrase "a photo from the zombietime website" indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of this issue. Whether Bolt got a photo via via zombietime is completely irrelevant; what matters is where it came from originally.
As I've explained at User talk:MrMonroe, Bolt did not use zombietime as a source in the journalistic (or Wikipedia) sense of the word. That is, he did not think "hey, I know that the ambulance story was a hoax because some unknown person on a website says so"; he read zombie's analysis, checked it against the accompanying photos from news services and decided that zombie was right. And of course, zombie (and Bolt, and Downer) were both right about the ambulances not being hit by missiles, as the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have both since conceded.
Cheers, CWC(talk) 14:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris, your histrionic posting and edit summary that includes the line "The Red Cross lied; deal with it" strongly suggest that you "appear to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view" as described at WP:BLP. Further, you are consistently adopting "a sympathetic point of view" on Mr Bolt, which this Wiki policy discourages.
The last sentence misstates an important Wikipedia policy; see below. CWC(talk) 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stick to the facts. You are clearly in no position to explain the steps Bolt took before he wrote his Herald Sun column on the ambulance incident. You make a fool of yourself by trying to do so. Just take a chill pill. MrMonroe 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I have the column of August 30, "Not the hole truth." Here's what Bolt said about where he gained the information for his column: "The bloggers -- notably an American one known as Zombietime, whose research I've drawn on -- dug out other damning photographs." And later: "See the complete evidence on www.zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance." I hope this clears this up.
I have also reinstated the Rudd comment about Downer and Bolt. The relevance of this is obvious in the context of the earlier allegation of Downer's assistance for Bolt. I can't think why this has been deleted. MrMonroe 23:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
First of all guys, please don't make accusations and comments about each other.
I've read this page and Mr Monroe's talk page as linked above and it looks like there's some confusion about the journalistic meaning of "source", particular as it pertains to the Australian news media. A source may mean either the person or document that provides a journalist with information. As far as this Bolt matter goes, I think it is quite clear that the zombietime.com article was a source. If Andrew read "zombie's analysis, checked it against the accompanying photos from news services and decided that zombie was right," then zombietime.com was definitely a journalistic source. Taking the information and verifying it's validity does not diminish its status as an original source. I disagree with speculating about how Andrew got his information and how he processed it because, unless Andrew says that's what he did, it's just your opinion. Further, unless you can quote a reliable source, it is not appropriate to authoritatively declare that "Bolt did not use zombietime as a source" because you can't know that and most of the time we never know a journalist's sources. Sarah 05:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All editors should note that WP:BLP does not discourage us from "adopting 'a sympathetic point of view' on" the subject of articles. On the contrary, WP:BLP almost requires editors to write from a sympathetic point of view. The warning against being too sympathetic relates to style, not content. It's the last sentence of the section headed "Writing style"(!):

The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

All editors should be familiar with the caveats in WP:BLP about criticism of living people. "Write from a sympathetic point of view" is a useful guideline, though it leaves out many important details of a complex policy.

In journalism, the word "source" can mean someone from whom I obtained information ("Jo said Fred Nurks told he witnessed the explosion") or someone whose statements are credible because he or she has relevant first-hand knowledge or recognised expertise. There's an important difference between "I'm saying X because Mr S says so" and "I'm saying X because photograph 1 shows X1 and photographs 2 and 3 show X2 — by the way, I am indebted to Mr S for pointing this out". Let's call the second category an "authoritative source". Bolt did not use "zombie" as an authoritative source. How do I know this? It's clear to anyone who reads Bolt's "Not the whole truth" column.[1] Here's the relevant text (many short paragraphs folded into one big one; otherwise verbatim):

Soon some bloggers, the media watchdogs of the internet, looked closer and saw something very odd. Check the pictures on this page. You could even see where the screws went. What’s more, the damaged parts of the roof were mottled with the rust of ages. The bloggers—notably an American one known as Zombietime, whose research I’ve drawn on—dug out other damning photographs. A side view of the ambulance, revealing the interior, showed no sign of fire or explosion, or anything to indicate a missile had slammed through the roof and landed . . . where? There was not even a dent in the floor. The front windscreen was collapsed inwards, not outwards as you’d expect from an explosion that had blown up an ambulance and taken off a patient’s leg, and the side windows were intact. There was more. Chaalan, the medic last seen lying in hospital with thick bandages over his chin and ear, was filmed some six days later giving another interview. But this time he had no bandages—and the skin once covered by them had no scratch, scab, scar or even stain. A fast healer.

So Bolt is acknowledging that he has used zombie's research, but he is arguing from the facts presented by zombie, not relying on zombie as an authority. That column appeared online 30-Aug-2006 at 06:06am. Bolt subsequently wrote at least 3 blog posts (I haven't done a comprehensive search):

  1. Sticking by the hoax posted 31-Aug-2006 at 06:04am: debunking Martin Chulov and Mark Dodd; tells readers to visit zombietime for pictures but does not use zombie's essay
  2. The ambulance hoax - why no missile could have done this posted 1-Sep-2006 at 02:18pm: a letter from an expert independently verifying that the Red Cross lied; with no connection whatsoever to zombietime
  3. Fake-but-true: The Age defends the holey ambulance hoax posted 2-Sep-2006 at 09:40am: debunks a polemical Age news item; does not mention zombietime

Note that he got independent verification that the Red Cross lied about missiles.

The question as to whether Downer relied on Bolt or zombietime is easier to answer: Downer says press spread an obvious lie, 28-Aug-2006, Bolt first writes about it 30-Aug-2006. End of story. Wikipedia has been spreading a lie about Downer for months and months. I am very annoyed about this; if you, oh reader, are not annoyed, there is something wrong with you.

BTW, Downer's explanation of how he immediately spotted something that experienced "war reporters" somehow failed to notice is interesting:[2]

[m]y reaction to that was that the ambulance would have been pulverised if it had been hit by a missile. That was just what I thought at the time, and subsequently photographs of the ambulance were drawn to my attention.

Why do I care about this? Because, as can be seen from Talk:Andrew Bolt/Archive 1 (look for "Chris Chittleborough"), I'm interested in the effects of the internet in general and bloggers in particular in journalism. This incident is a classic example.

I will edit the article accordingly. Since the current version violates WP:BLP, reverting my edit will contravene a vital Wikipedia policy, so "don't do that". Improvements, corrections, additional links, etc are (as always) quite welcome. Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit removes essential parts of this encyclopedic discussion of Bolt's work and shows a clear bias. It is not for you to decide the truth or otherwise of the ambulance incident, nor to decide that questions asked by Rudd of Downer are "false smears", and then delete these. These are all part of a balanced examination of Bolt's work and the reaction to it. Please stick to the facts. MrMonroe 20:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
At risk of further inflaming this disagreement with Chris Chittleborough, I'm intrigued by his comment on feb 12 that Human Rights Watch and Red Cross have conceded that the ambulances weren't hit by missiles. A report from HRW at [3] states unambiguously and strenuously that this was not a hoax; that the ambulances were hit by Israeli missiles. I haven't yet discovered the Red Cross "concession" he refers to. On this basis, it seems Chris Chittleborough has written patently false statements in support of his edits which are becoming increasingly biased.
I don't mean to distract attention from the discussion here, however: the Bolt Wiki entry as it stands validly includes reference to his column, his sources and the reaction to it. An individual's view on a hotly disputed subject such as the alleged ambulance incident (a Google search certainly indicates the divergence of views) should not interfere with this entry. MrMonroe 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Response from "CWC"
While the Red Cross's initial press release was quite vague, media reports quoted Lebanese Red Cross workers saying that the Israelis had hit two ambulances with missiles fired from jet fighters (ie., not from UAVs). Within a day or so, the workers were saying that the ambulances were hit by bullets from UAVs.[4] These stories are contradictory; at least one is a lie. The HRW went for a third story: Israel might be developing some special-purpose missiles, might have working or production models, might have deployed them on drones that might have been used in Lebanon, and might have wasted those extremely expensive munitions on ambulances. That contradicts both stories from the Red Cross workers. Therefore the HRW strongly implies that those guys were lying both times.

Some questions:

  1. Was it balanced to imply that Downer and Bolt called the early reports a hoax because they were mindlessly echoing some unknown guy with an internet website?
  2. Was it balanced to quote Kevin Rudd's questions at length but not point out that the chronology and Downer's doorstop contradicted the insinuation that Downer was mindlessly echoing Bolt?
  3. Was it encyclopedic to mention Bolt's 30-Aug-2006 column but not link to it?
  4. Is it acceptable to insinuate that Bolt got his thinking from an anonymous American, but not mention his detailed argument or that he wrote multiple other articles which did not rely on zombietime?
  5. Is it NPOV to quote from and link to an attack on Bolt by Mark Dodd, but not even mention Bolt's strong response?
  6. Is it NPOV to mention Martin Chulov's story but not Bolt's response?

I contend that the answer to all these questions is definitely "NO". That section of the article violated several key Wikipedia policies, including WP:BLP, WP:NPOV (especially the "undue weight" section), and WP:V. Furthermore, until I fixed it, it omitted crucial facts and implicitly smeared Bolt and Downer as mindless parrots of other people's propaganda. The version recently reverted to still suggests a conspiracy between Bolt and Downer.

It is quite fitting for each and every one of us to "decide the truth or otherwise of the ambulance incident." Indeed, intellectual honesty demands it. It is quite OK to have a POV, even a strong one; the problem comes when you insert your POV into an article (as distinct from talk pages, edit summaries, etc) in violation of Wikipedia rules. (That last clause matters. It's OK to insert verifiable, notable, cited statements that you happen to agree with.) I have tried to keep my POV out of all the articles I edit, even Jochen Liedtke.)

I think that the stuff about the ambulance hoax part in the article now has only one fault: it is way too long. If anyone sees any problems I've missed, please correct them. If anyone sees a good way to shorten the current text, please do so. Cheers, CWC(talk) 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Yawn). So you lied about Red Cross and Human Rights Watch "conceding" the ambulance wasn't hit by missiles. They say black; you read between the lines and say they really meant white. You're obviously incapable of rational debate. My guess is that you go through life shouting at and threatening people who disagree with you (witness your ridiculous posting on my talk page) until they get so worn down they just give up. Write what you will, Chris. I can't be bothered any more. MrMonroe 20:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petro Pirates

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 {{Verify credibility}} 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)

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)

[edit] Blog

I have changed the section on Bolt's blog, to make it less POV. I deleted the reference to people posting riddles, as this is not a notable aspect of the blog, and no external reference was suggested. I have also deleted the aspect referring to "friendly debate", as this strikes me as POV (how to define friendly debate? some readings of the forum may suggest vitriolic and passionate disagreement, even hatred). I have also made a non-POV link to the Boltwatch site, as a reference for people who dispute Bolt's writing. Others may wish to remove the other references to Boltwatch, as I believe that this is the correct place for it in the article. Boofalah36 22:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blyth vs Bolt

Andrew Bolt mentioned this article on his blog yesterday, and specifically said that our description of his involvment in the Petro Ranger incident was "a falsehood". (Read his replies to two of the comments, as well as the post itself.)

I edited the section to link to Bolt's denial, and quote from it. Then it struck me that 3 paragraphs of Blyth-said/Bolt-said is probably at least two too many. I've moved my updated version of the material here for discussion.

In 2000 Bolt’s accuracy and honesty as a journalist was challenged in a book written by Ken Blyth, the captain of an oil tanker which was seized by pirates in the South China Sea. Bolt has strongly denied parts of Blyth's account.[5]
In Petro Pirates, Ken Blyth relates how his vessel, the MT Petro Ranger, along with all crew, was detained by Chinese authorities in Haikou Harbour in April and May 1998 after the pirates were apprehended. Blyth wrote that in May Bolt (then a journalist in News Ltd’s Hong Kong bureau) arrived beside the tanker in a sampan. The pair, separated by about 10 metres, had a brief shouted conversation, Blyth warning that Bolt risked being shot by the Chinese soldiers guarding the Petro Ranger. Blyth rejects as fanciful Bolt’s published claim{{cn}} that he had yelled: "For God's sake don't come on board or they'll shoot us all", denies he asked for a message to be passed to his wife and says he did not ask Bolt to contact Foreign Affairs in Australia for him.
Bolt returned to the tanker the next day, but was intercepted by a military patrol boat and escorted to Haikou for questioning. Blyth claims the reality did not match Bolt’s brave tale in his later articles. He 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); he also disputes 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. Bolt claims he "signed a statement agreeing that what Blyth had told me about the hijacking of his ship was seriously inconsistent with what the Chinese navy and police told me" (Bolt's emphasis).[6] Blyth claims Bolt’s "irresponsible and inaccurate" reports worsened his situation and led to tighter security than he had been experiencing.

Questions we should consider: Is Ken Blyth a Reliable Source? Is this incident notable enough to take up this much space in the article? Is it notable at all?

Things that need no discussion: the version of this text which does not mention Bolt's response is now unacceptable. Reverting to that version would violate WP:BLP, so please don't do that. Cheers, CWC(talk) 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blyth's comments strike me as reasonable. A ship's captain isn't exactly some Joe Blow who wanders in and makes some slanderous comment about someone without reason. He wrote about Bolt because Bolt blundered into his life and then endangered it. Of course Bolt is going to deny it. I don't know why you;re so keen to protect him from criticism, or why you think Bolt's denial carries more weight that Blyth's accusation.
At the heart of Blyth's comment is the accusation that Bolt can be liberal with the truth. That strikes me as pretty damn relevant to a high-profile newspaper columnist who makes a career out of expressing his opinions about other people.
The best way of treating this is to include Blyth's remarks and Bolt's denial -- hopefully a little less long-winded than he did it on his blog.165.69.111.38 14:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have trimmed down Blyth's accusations and reinstated them to the main article. Bolt's denial and the link to this is retained. MrMonroe 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambulance controversy pruning

User LTSally (talk • contribs) (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)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

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)

[edit] Petro Pirates image

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)

The author is non-notable. The book is non-notable. A Google Scholar search gets zero hits.The only results a classic google search pull up refer to this wiki entry or a answers.com page about Andrew Bolt. Bolt as repudiated the claims in the book. The image is a case of guerilla marketing in an attempt to drive up some exposure. This is no way this should be the only image in an article about Andrew Bolt. Prester John 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/d/Talk%7EAndrew_Bolt_1e10.html"