Talk:Andrew Bolt

Edit war regarding comments about Bruce Pascoe
If it is controversial to accuse someone of (lying about) something, then it seems relevant to the controversy if those accusations are later shown to be true or false. For instance, if someone accused someone of being a spy working for a foreign government, or a pedophile, or the zodiac killer, or whatever, and then those allegations were later proven to be true, that would be relevant. When you see that someone did something controversial, it matters to the controversy whether they were later vindicated or proven wrong. For instance, it matters whether Billy Mitchell's controversial predictions about the future of air combat were proven true or not, even though that is a fact about air warfare and not about Billy Mitchell. If Tom Hanks said that someone who was the victim of a vicious mugging had actually staged the crime as a hoax to garner sympathy, that would be a very controversial accusation and the controversy would be part of his wikipedia page. It would chance how people think of him, to know that Tom Hanks had accused someone of that. People would be interested to know that he had made that accusation, so, therefore the fact that he made it would be part of Tom Hank's wikipedia page. If evidence emerged to prove or disprove the accusation, that would be relevant to the controversy. When deciding what to think of the thing that Tom Hanks hypothetically said, people would care whether or not his accusation proved correct or false. It would be relevant to the story. It would be crucial information for people to have about the controversial thing that Tom Hanks hypothetically did before they made up their minds about the subject. It's the obvious thing that people would want to know about what is being written about. It is the sort of thing that a journalist could not responsibly leave out, if they were writing an article about the incident later, even if the article was primarily about Tom Hank's role in the controversy. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What? Nothing to do with Bolt. Again!!!!! Nor even Pascoe. Too long as well. Sorry. Not reading all that. Try again. HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * TarnishedPath closed the discussion under NotForum and didn't take the time to fully explain what they mean by that in this case, which is understandable, but puts me in a difficult situation. I can't be sure, but I strongly suspect TarnishedPath misread the situation. WP:NotForum doesn't apply here. I wasn't trying to debate the subject matter, I was purely talking about what changes should be made to the article.
 * We are discussing not the subject matter but whether certain changes to the article are appropriate. I think that the controversy section re: Bolt's accusations against Pascoe should include the outcome of the accusations. HiLo does not. But apparently he doesn't feel like reading my explanation of my position because it's too long so I'm not sure how we're supposed to debate the matter. I tried to give a full understanding and give hypothetical examples so that there was no chance of my being misunderstood. That's why it's long. I believe that my position on the matter is necessary to abide by both Wikipedia's rules and the rules of what makes sense when it comes to conveying information and writing about things in general.
 * I don't know if TarnishedPath is now going to be furious at me for undoing the closing of discussion, but I honestly believe it was done based on a misunderstanding. If I am wrong, please inform me. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not the type to get furious at words on a screen. However this is the first talk page discussion that's occured and you launch straight into hypotheticals which looks more like a forum discussion. Hardly helpful. The only discussion I've seen so far regarding edits has been in the form of edit summaries and that form of discussion is never going to be helpful. Edit summaries should explain what you've done, not be a proxy for discussion. If dispute arrises it should immediately be taken to talk. TarnishedPathtalk 02:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would add that this is the Talk page for the article on Andrew Bolt. That long initial post didn't mention him. It mentioned Bruce Pascoe in the heading, but not once in the text. Those were the facts that seemed to me to make it pointless to read in detail. I can't see how you are discussing either if you don't mention either of them. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed and that's exactly why I closed it as WP:NOTFORUM. Now @Benevolent Prawn, if you want to discuss the edits specifically, you're free to do so at any time. I don't really care either way because I wasn't involved. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Herald Sun blogs and Sky News
Hi all, I've gone through the article and removed all the Herald Sun blog and Sky News references because neither are WP:GREL and should not be used in BLPs. Further they don't pass the WP:ABOUTSELF exception which might allow usage because they all make claims about third-parties. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 10:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But if the Wikipedia page says that Andrew Bolt apologized for the "hit on" comment, doesn't it make sense to link to the apology? How could that be unreliable? I guess it could be unreliable if the apology never occurred at the time the webpage says it did and a fake apology article was created at a later date and then backdated, or if Bolt didn't write it himself and it was fraudulently attributed to him without his knowledge/permission. I don't think that's what happened here though. What am I missing? Benevolent Prawn (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Benevolent Prawn, if Bolt's apology was an apology and nothing else it may be acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. However it isn't. Per WP:RSP "The talk shows for Sky News Australia engage in disinformation and should be considered generally unreliable". Now that means the only way we can accept the source is if there is some exception, however as soon as Bolt begins to talk he starts making claims about third parties and that rules out usage of the source per point 2 of WP:ABOUTSELF. It is exactly the same with any of his blog articles or talk show episodes, every single one of them makes biased claims about third-parties. Not a single one of them is usable. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)