Talk:Andrew Bolt/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Relevance of Margo's Webdiary

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)

Change Article Layout

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)

View of Personal Bias

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)

Article Structure

This article could use a little shaping up, so how about we agree on the format and work from there.

I reckon this looks good:

Can we please Ban MrLefty from editing this entry? He has a vested interest. He also cant POV post. If anyone is in doubt as to what I say MrLefty's site (BoltWatch) (over which he has exclusive control) talks of Bolt's "Deranged Polemic" getting whats coming to it.

Career

Previous Work

Yeah, he used to do some sports, and probably other things too.

Current Work - Insider program

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)

Current Work - Herald Sun

His big gig right now is the HS page three or so, maybe twice a week.

Controversy

- Statement of fact that controversy (eg in other media, legal action ,etc).

Boltie's Position

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)

Quotes from supporters

Yeah, I loved that thing he said/wrote about! Here's why I agree with/support him.

People Who Bolt Thinks Are Idiots

Two of Bolt's main critics are Stephen Mayne, and David Marr. Mayne is the founder of Crikey, while Marr is a current ABC presenter, Sydney Morning Herald writer and former presenter of the ABC program Media Watch. On both of these highly public forums, extended conflicts have been played out.

Mediawatch

The argument between Bolt and the Marr began on the 21st of July 2003, on Media Watch. Marr claimed that Bolt's article A Kick Up The Arts (2/6/2003), unfairly treated the subject of the article-writer Alison Broinowski by claiming she had misused 3 small taxpayer-funded arts grants by writing a book saying Australia had deserved the 2002 Bali bombing. Bolt responded angrily to Marr, what followed was a very heated exchange on the next episode of Media Watch; Marr first retracted one claim (about the number of grants; Broinowski had actually received the three grants as Bolt had said). Bolt demanded an apology live on Media Watch saying Marr had told lies about him. Marr responded by saying that Bolt very much likes dishing criticism towards people, but cannot take it himself. The argument remained deadlocked (see for their very heated exchange). .

Crikey

Mayne and Bolt were at one stage co-wrokers at the Herald Sun. Mayne left the paper in June 1997.

Legal Cases

13 December 2000, Andrew Bolt's Herald Sun article stated that Magistrate Jelena Popovic had, "hugged two drug traffickers she let walk free". In 2002, Popovic sued the publishers of the Herald Sun and Bolt for libel. The Victorian Supreme Court awarded $246,000 AUD. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of Victoria set aside $25,000 AUD of the original award.

See Also

  • Surely there is something in Wikipedia relevent?

External Links


Comments

  • 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)

I'm watching this page, so I'll be pretty available to work on this with whomever is keen. But there has been a lof of editing here with out a huge improvement, see this diff [1]. So perhaps we could lay off the main page? brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes Aaron I think it is a great idea. I think perhaps you remove the slang "bolties position" and "people who think he's an idiot" to "personal views" and "major critics". But yes this section desperately needs work. I think you should allow a praise section as well. An example of a very good neutral article of a controversial figure is for that of Michael Moore. Where both critics and admirers of Moore's work are given equal merit, and their views are presented in a non-biased way. I remind the person earlier who had a go at me-that wikipedia takes note of people's bias. So that's why it asks for the editor's to consider this when editing and to use neutral language. I also remind the person, that I have not been apointed here as an editor. I am here on my own free will. Moving on. Perhaps for a figure like this-there needs to be almost a "joint committee". Two people on opposite sides prepared to compromise on neutral terms about the man. That or they are given free range for their "praise" and "criticism" sections.....Blindfreddy84 03:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought it was clear that that wasn't meant to stand as it was. I was equally mouthy about his critics in the original version, but those sections simply got filled in with content from the article. It was a bit thoughtless of me. brenneman(t)(c) 11:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Aaron I'm not being critical-It's just it's important to straighten things out at the start, in order to avoid an "edit war" Blindfreddy84 08:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Aaron I now know why you might have taken offence, when I said "This section desperately needs work" I meant article. I apologiseBlindfreddy84 09:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh, I'm much harder to offend than that! ;) - brenneman(t)(c) 10:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just had a go at the article -- I think I've improved it a bit, but I did not try to bring it up to standard. (I'm new at Wikipedia editing. My previous edits were all one-word changes!) The main thing I wanted to add was some stuff about Bolta's online forum, which I think might be (or become) quite a significant experiment in Internet journalism. I've put some text up as a first draft, but it's pretty rough in places. (The last sentence really stinks.) Comments, corrections and other feedback welcome.

(I also deleted the link to thoughtsfrommyanus.blogspot.com, which has (so to speak) died in the arse.)

Chris Chittleborough 12:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I'm fine with the edits but the POV about the Boltwatch site was not needed. If you notice that quite often the site notes when Bolt has made a good point. Just because the point is contrary it does not make it hostile. I still think this page needs work like Aaron Brenneman said. Still need someone who has the time.....Blindfreddy84 18:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, especially about needing someone with more time (and in my case, expertise). I've had another go, concentrating on reduce the POV in my stuff and putting the forum in context. Re Boltwatch, perhaps "critical" would be better than "contrary"? Chris Chittleborough 10:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I have just reverted what looks like some POV or original research. if it were written in a more neutral way i would not object. Xtra 09:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Changes made by Chris Chittleborough 16:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC):

  • Fix several dud links
  • Removed qualification ("Critics say ...") re forum snipping; he openly replaces slabs of text with "SNIP" and often says why
  • Added description of boltwatch, moved Bolt's URL to start of external links list
  • Reworded paragraph about Insiders
  • Reworded and expanded 2nd para in "Forum" section

I also removed a section alleging that Bolt lied about the Max Planck Institute's position on global warming. The only source cited was a hard-left blog. A little googling found [2], which Bolt seems to have summarised correctly.

I apologise for making so many changes in one edit. Won't do that again!

Tarcoola Redlink

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)

Yep, it is. So I've edited the article accordingly. Chris Chittleborough 08:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes made by Gerbilus

I have reverted 3 small edits by "Gerbilus" which affect two paragraphs.

Critics also point out that Bolt ... . Bolt and his supporters point out that Insiders ...
Please notice the parallel structure. Please notice that both claims are undeniably true. Please notice that we tend to overuse the word "claim" in this artice. Hence the use of "point out" in both cases. Changing the second "point out" to "claim" is POV. (Also, I do not see why changing "claim" to "also claim" "reads better".)
... and is a supporter of the war in Iraq
No he is not. Note present tense! The war currently going on in Iraq is a war between terrorists from various groups on one side and an Iraqi government and their allies on another side. Bolt is not a supporter of that war; I feel quite certain that he would like to see it end as soon as possible.
We could write "and is a supporter of what he sees as the liberation of Iraq". The only reason I have not done so is that I think this construction is (1) clumsy and (2) largely redundant, because the phrase implicitly is taking his point of view. Anyone who disagrees is free to edit "what he sees as" into the article. I will only revert changes that imply (unintentionally, I'm sure) that Bolt supports the terrorists.

Chris Chittleborough 03:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I conceed Chris's point regarding the change from "liberation of iraq" to "war in Iraq" How about, "and strongly supported the 2004 invasion of Iraq" It reads cleanly, is a well known fact, and does not imply support of terrorists nor continuation of the war.

With respect to the imbalance of conservative/liberal commentators on the "insiders" program. There have been episodes with both Piers Ackerman and Andrew Bolt at the same time. Most of the time the make up of the panel seems to be that they are trying for left/right/central - although it is acknowledged that they dont always achieve this. Therefore I refute the "undeniably true" statement.

You are correct that there is an overuse of the word "claim" therefore I have inserted "suggest"

Hey, "strongly supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003" is much better. Well done.
I was not aware that Insiders (or, indeed, any other program from the ABC Current Affairs TV unit) had ever had more than one conservative guest. I'm astonished (but glad) to hear it. When was that? (And you're correct about Insiders trying for left/center/right guests. Irrelevant aside: like Andrew Bolt, I have a lot of time for Barrie Cassidy.)
BTW, it's a good idea to put 4 tildes at the end of something you write on a talk page. Wikipedia will turn it into your name and the date, like this:
Chris Chittleborough 07:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris

Thanks for that I wondered how people did that.

With repect to the "Insiders" I remember seeing an episode where Piers Ackerman and AB were both on at the same time, some time early this year, alas I don't remenber exacly when.

I guess my main point is that as a long term ABC watcher, I dont see the systemic left Bias which has been often claimed in recent years. Just because you give the incumbant government a hard time does not necessarily suggest bias. In fact I remember the ABC was not that kind to Labor during the Keating and Hawke years.

Given that AB generates such passions on both sides of the ideological divide, I feel it is critical that opinion and POV is minimised as much as possible in the text. Therefore putting "suggest" or "claim" allows the idea to be put out there and debated. However "point out" suggests it is a fact when it is actually only an opinion (which may or may not be true).

regardsGerbilus 08:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

PS I agree with you about Barrie Cassidy

BoltWatch

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)

Ok, I've edited it to say "Site critical of Bolt and his writings". If people want to word it differently, please work it out here. If this keeps going on, I'll protect the page and start blocking people for 3RR. --bainer (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

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)


This is getting silly. As requested by "Thebreainer" I come here and make a posting to "resolve the arguments" and then I find MrLefty has deleted my posting! Grow up Mr Lefty.

I re-post my previous posting:

Mr Lefty said : "David Tan's allegations as to my identity are both irrelevant and unsubstantiated."

If you are not , Barrister from Melbourne just deny it.

If you are you have a conflict of interest and that should be known. Wikipedia is IIRC about factual accuracy. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 210.23.133.216 (talk • contribs)

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)

I have removed David Tan's attempt to identify me by guessing at what my name might be.

All of this nonsense about whoever David Tan thinks I am is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. The only reason David Tan is repeatedly restoring it is that it's part of his campaign today to try to figure out who I am. It is of no interest to Wikipedia. It is of no interest to anyone looking up Andrew Bolt. It is only of interest to David Tan, who wants to abuse the Wikipedia system for his own petty personal vendetta.

Users of Wikipedia are entitled to use pseudonyms and not accept harassment campaigns by other users trying to identify them. I am entitled to use a pseudonym, and should not have to defend that pseudonym by denying every name David Tan comes up with. All David Tan's attempts to do so violate Wikipedia's policy on attacks on other users, and should be deleted.

ALSO, even if this were relevant, which it clearly isn't, it's clearly got nothing to do with the "protected" subheading. Which is why I deleted it.

Post by David Tan

Thanks for the suggestion TheBrainer. I will set up a separate article on BoltWatch.

As to your posting MrLefty I respond as follows (your words in italics):

All of this nonsense about whoever David Tan thinks I am is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia.

It is not irrelevant to Wikipedia. Your conflict of interest is clear and is a relevant consideration for Wikipedia.

The only reason David Tan is repeatedly restoring it is that it's part of his campaign today to try to figure out who I am.

You were identified as many months if not years ago. I note you have still not denied you are .

It is of no interest to Wikipedia. It is of no interest to anyone looking up Andrew Bolt. It is only of interest to David Tan, who wants to abuse the Wikipedia system for his own petty personal vendetta.

Andrew Bolt was certainly interested in who you were. Im sure there are plenty of people who are for their own reasons.

Users of Wikipedia are entitled to use pseudonyms and not accept harassment campaigns by other users trying to identify them.

It is not harrassment to what a relevant factual matter published. The only reason I have to post repeatedly is that you keep deleting my posts.

I am entitled to use a pseudonym, and should not have to defend that pseudonym by denying every name David Tan comes up with.

I have come up with one name and you dont deny it. Your failure to deny speaks volumes.

All David Tan's attempts to do so violate Wikipedia's policy on attacks on other users, and should be deleted.

It is just a relevant fact . It is not a big issue.

ALSO, even if this were relevant, which it clearly isn't, it's clearly got nothing to do with the "protected" subheading. Which is why I deleted it.

Point taken. I will do a separate article. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 210.23.133.216 (talk • contribs)

Whatever David Tan thinks a users' real name is is not, in any sense, "a relevant factual matter". David obviously does not understand the point of Wikipedia, and wishes to continue a personal vendetta here.

This entire matter is a farce and should be deleted. BoltWatch is merely on the Andrew Bolt entry as a relevant link, which it obviously is. The real name of the person running the site is not in any way required for a wikipedia link, as demonstrated by practically every single other link on wikipedia.

This entire section is abuse, and should be deleted. (As should any entry on BoltWatch, which clearly does not qualify for a Wikipedia entry and, in any case, any entry by the user who's proposing to create one would clearly be a vindictive and NPOV one. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Mrlefty (talk • contribs)

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)

Your comment that what I am doing is for the purpose of harrassment is wrong and offensise. I have removed it. If you repost it I will go to your superiors.

On-line forum section ‘subjective’

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)


I have and I do read both his articles and the forum(otherwise I would not be commenting here) and fail to see merit in your point/s. Andrew Bolt is an opinion writer, a controversial one whose lack of veracity has been question on many occasions (and indeed even proven in a court of law) . What he says can not be construed as *fact* simply because he has said it and it would pay for you to attempt to separate these concepts if u intend to write articles of any quality. Please direct me to any article in a reputable encyclopaedia that claims elements as fact referenced by merely taking someone “at his word”. I would suggest you may find a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

Weather or not I personally view Andrew Bolt as a habitual liar is again entirely irrelevant to the content of this article. That you feel the need to jump to Andrew Bolts defence based on some perceived slight is informative as to your perspective however. I don’t seek to impress my personal view into this article, but rather that the contained information is accurate and verifiable, can you say the same?

My point is that there is NO evidence either way and as such many claims you have made simply cannot be verified by independent means, therefore these claims do not belong in an article of reference, pure and simple.

I do not need to find evidence to contradict his claims ‘to be taken seriously’, the onus in not on me to disprove, but rather the claimant to prove via evidentiary means that which he says stands as fact! Only then is it appropriate that such elements are included within this article.

You cannot simply ‘report’ your interpretation of Andrew Bolt; this is not a newspaper where editorial world view can and does taint items with opinion! Reference articles require a higher standard or rigour than that I’m afraid. Writers need to keep their views out of the content or it simply results in poor quality.

“Flamer” is a colloquial term that is highly dependent on personal perspective and it is not appropriate in the context in which you have used it. In answer to your question; I have never given a moment of thought as to whom Bolt chooses to ban. I fail to see the relevance unless your motivation in point is polemic rather than a defence of quality.

The lack of Permalinks and BBcode does not in itself indicate budgetary expenditure, these elements of functionality can be found commonly in many free forum applications, and you are embarking on pure speculation as to why the format is the way it is (if you have contrary evidence please reference it) It is just as likely for instance that the format is structured as an act of deliberate design rather than some perceived constraint. I don’t know and nor do you. Therefore the description "low-budget format", you have chosen is inappropriate and non-descriptive within the context in which it is used.

Andrew Bolt in NOT a political columnist, he is an op-ed columnist where politics are not anywhere near the primary focus of his articles. Furthermore nowhere did you state that Andrew Bolt is a pioneer Australian tabloid op-ed columnist where News Limited is the publisher and that publication is the Sun Herald, which I suggest MAY be ever so slightly more accurate! Again you speculate that “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” without ANY justification as to what is rather a sweeping statement, how can you prove this? Where is the *evidence*?

-slain
The preceding comment was actually added by User:220.239.76.227. There is no User:Slain on Wikipedia.

  1. "Slain", please create a Wikipedia account and use it for your edits.
  2. The two IP addresses used by "Slain" have not been used to edit any wikipedia pages other than this one. (http://www.dnsstuff.com says both are owned by OptusNet and located in Brisbane.)
  3. Verbosity and intensity are no substitute for good argument.
  4. For what little it's worth, I am genuinely interested to learn what "Slain" thinks of the banning of Mr Toben.
  5. "Slain" says "My point is that there is NO evidence either way". Well, actually, there is evidence, isn't there: unrefuted testimony from one person who must be regarded as somewhat authoritative on the subject. The article merely reports the contents of that testimony.
  6. "Low-budget format" means that the forum appears cheap, not that it was cheap to set up or is cheap to operate.

I'm afraid I can't be bothered responding to the rest of this just now. Chris Chittleborough 10:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/d/Talk%7EAndrew_Bolt_Archive_1_49aa.html"