Talk:Andrew Bolt/Archive 1

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.

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?

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. 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): 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, which Bolt seems to have summarised correctly.
 * 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 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. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 210.23.133.216 (talk &bull; 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. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 210.23.133.216 (talk &bull; 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. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Mrlefty (talk &bull; 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 &lsquo;subjective&rsquo;
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"&mdash;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.

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

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). &mdash;Chris Chittleborough 13:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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:
 * [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 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. 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: 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.
 * 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?

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)

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.


 * 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{&#123;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). 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)

Ambulance controversy pruning
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 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)

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)

Prolixity
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)

Links to refs
We use two of Bolt's 2003 columns as references: 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)
 * "Hitler: Green guru", Herald Sun, 17 July 2003, page 21
 * "Dangerous fanatic", Herald Sun, 27 October 2003, page 19

Undid section
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)
 * 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)

Words to Avoid
I found this in Words to Avoid: Insist, maintain, protest, contend, feel These 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)


 * OK then, I'm making the three amendments now. Martin0001 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

cleanup
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, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV. Gnangarra 15:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

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)


 * (Much later) It is to be expected that user would refuse to give Bolt any credit for pioneering the now-ubiquitous blogs and forums at newspaper sites: Mrlefty has been energetically trying to discredit Bolt for many years, and now even gets paid to do so.
 * But the fact remains that Bolt was one of the first few journalists to run a web forum for his readers and critics (which, BTW, was always a lot more substantial than Mrlefty admits). Of course, my research is WP:OR, not WP:RS, but I contend we should mention this in the article. Perhaps someone could look for a citable history of web forums in journalism? Please?
 * (As mentioned above, I think that Bolt got his early start by finding a crummy piece of software and getting it onto the Herald-Sun website while other people were still negotiating requirements with IT departments. There's a lesson here for programmers like me who like to plan things carefully in advance.) Cheers, CWC 19:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Silliness
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)
 * No, that assertion is utter bullshit, like most things that Bolt-haters say about him. CWC 07:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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?

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)

August 2010
Shouldn't some mention be given to his right-wing leanings, conspiracy theories and AGW denialism? Alreadyinuse123 (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We should call him "conservative". I've edited the first sentence accordingly. Can anyone improve my wording? (The term was dropped in this edit.)
 * I've seen him debunk conspiracy theories, but never propagate them.
 * We used to describe his " CAGW skepticism " in an unsourced subsection, deleted here because unsourced claims in WP:BLPs are against our rules. It would be great if someone could find good sources for that subsection and restore it. The use of the word "denialism" in the context of AGW started as a conscious effort to deceive; I recommend you stop using that term immediately to avoid appearing intellectually and/or morally bankrupt. (The best term I've found is "CAGW skeptic", where C is for Catastrophic.) Cheers, CWC 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have some sources that label him as a "conservative". This is very necessary, particularly if it will appear in the lead.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 22:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Edit request from Khovert, 19 June 2011
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)
 * ✅ — James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:21pm • 10:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

factual error in article
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)
 * No offence intended, user - but, can you please say what EXACTLY needs changing? This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - thanks,  Chzz  ► 07:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Edit request from Wildvet, 28 September 2011
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * OK. Your text and that link are now in the article. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Is Andrew Bolt a journalist?
Justice Mordy Bromberg says "Mr Bolt is a journalist of very significant public standing and influence" in his judgment, why doesn't this article describe Bolt as a 'journalist' when that's clearly what he is? --Brandonfarris (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I must humbly disagree with Justice Bromberg. A journalist writes objectively about the news. Bolt writes with extreme bias on matters of controversy, not necessarily current news. He is paid to be controversial, and is good at that. He may have once been a journalist. He is now a political commentator. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he notes your humility and I'm not saying he's the oracle of all wisdom either, he is just one of dozens of sources we could use to substantiate the fact that Bolt is clearly a journalist. It's a profession; not a term of endearment. Your definition of journalism is not supported anywhere, including on Wikipedia: Journalism.
 * The fact you don't like Bolt's writing or his opinions or that he is controversial doesn't change the fact that he's still a journalist. If Julian Assange qualifies, and I have no issue with it, then Bolt, an associate editor of the Herald Sun no less, most certainly does. The claim that because he writes opinion pieces that he is therefore not a journalist is patent nonsense, would you say those writing leaders for The Times of London are not journalists because they're writing the newspaper's opinion. Or has The Age's Paul Austin become less of a journalist because they moved him from Victorian politics to become opinion editor? It's a very, very silly argument by those who think that calling someone a 'journalist' is high praise. It's not, there are good ones and bad ones, just like any other vocation. It doesn't do anything for Wikipedia's credibility for this absurd situation to long prevail. --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please consider reading this too WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that I "don't like Bolt's writing or his opinions"? I didn't, because my opinion of Bolt's writings or opinions is irrelevant here. Maybe he could be described as a journalist according to some literal definition, but for our readers it's surely more helpful to describe him as a "Conservative commentator" as was previously the case. It provides more information and puts the rest of his story in context. Feel free to also describe him as a journalist, if you think it helps (I cannot see how it does), but don't remove the really useful information. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Where did I get the idea you didn't like Bolt's writing, maybe it was the part where you wrote "Bolt writes with extreme bias"! Anyway, he is a journalist by the literal definition, we're agreed. You can call him a conservative commentator too, that's an accurate enough description, used in a reasonable context. It's not his profession though, and it's not on his business card. It is not an unreasonable view of what he does though and I don't have an issue with it, in its proper place. --Brandonfarris (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are reading my posts at the wrong level. He does write with extreme bias. It's deliberate, and he does it very well. I really admire his skill in that area. Unfortunately, a lot of his readers aren't so clever. He manipulates them. He is good at that too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a journalist. There is no requirement for a journalist to be impartial and objective in every utterance, because if that were the case, nobody could possibly meet such a definition. There are journalists of all stripes writing for all sorts of audiences, and they can't all share the same views. However, Bolt is several other things, and we may add those things to his article in the interests of giving a fair description. I refer to Phillip Adams as a good example. --Pete (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Extreme bias' as a compliment. Possibly a first in human history. Agree that he's a conservative commentator and will add that in somewhere. --Brandonfarris (talk) 09:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many types of journalists. You can divide journalists up by the type of events they report on (sports journalism, political journalism, etc), by medium (press, TV, etc), and so on. Another division is between opinion journalists (who are nearly always columnists) and what I'll call "reporters". Most journalists are "reporters", but columnists are (a small subclass of) journalists.
 * Bolt is a political journalist, and an opinion journalist (being both a columnist and a blogger). He started out as a press journalist; now he does radio and TV as well. Like many opinion journalists, he does some original reporting for his opinion pieces, but (AFAIK) no longer does any straight news reporting.
 * Our lede sentence currently calls Bolt "an Australian journalist, newspaper columnist, radio commentator, blogger and television host." Strictly speak, "journalist" is redundant with "columnist", but I like starting with the better-known generic term.
 * In the infobox, saying he's known for "Journalism" is accurate, but I'd prefer to be more specific. "Political journalist and commentator"? "Columnist and commentator?" There are lots of possibilities, none of which is obviously right.


 * BTW, I've trimmed down the lede section. (The 2nd para was grammatically sick, and I've removed some unnecessary/non-RS cites.) Discussion and further edits welcome. Cheers, CWC 09:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bolt may well be, by definition, a journalist, but that says nothing about why he has an article here. Many journalists don't. Bolt is a person paid to write controversial, populist columns and say controversial, populist things by populist, right wing media outlets, in order to boost the ratings and sales of those organisations. He does it very well. This is the case even when he is found guilty of breaking the law. It did nothing to harm readership and ratings. How this can reflected in a simple one or two word entry in an Infobox is beyond me. I hate Infoboxes. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bolt is a highly visible journalist, along with Maxine McKew, Phillip Adams and so on. Current affairs media presenters. And, of course, they are employed to boost the ratings and sales of their employers. As is any journalist. His views, his audience, his detractors do not make a jot of difference. He is a journalist. There is ample scope for well-sourced criticism of Bolt in the article. And equally well-sourced defence. One of the interesting things to come out of the verdict was that any number of senior journalists - such as Jack Waterford, hardly a right-wing booster - penned long and thoughtful essays on why the law needed to be changed to prevent any recurrence. --Pete (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why did you read that as a criticism of Bolt? I admire his ability to do what he is paid to do. And did you take any notice at all of my point that calling him a journalist (and nothing else) in the Infobox actually tells us nothing of value at all? I wish we could avoid comment from those who love him and feed off his writings, rather than being able to objectively see what he does (very well). HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I read what you said. I think you should step back a little. Your description above is not one that could be endorsed as consensus. If you think he should be described in the limited about of space as something other than what he clearly is, then what? As I point out, if you think his article needs more space to define his role a little more clearly, fill it up. So long as we follow NPOV, RS and all the rest, we should look at telling Bolt's story as completely and accurately and as fairly as we can. --Pete (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a discussion about whether what Bolt says is right or not. I suspect that's what you want it to be. It's about what Bolt is, what he does, and why this article is here. "Journalist" just doesn't cut it. Most journalists don't have articles here. I really detest trying to summarise a description of a person into one or two words in an Infobox, but if we must, how about "Conservative commentator"? HiLo48 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2012
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)


 * 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)

Associate editor
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)

Limited Mention of The Bolt Report
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) This statement is questionable: 'The Bolt Report is watched by far more viewers than Insiders'. On Sunday mornings in 2012, Insiders at 9am was rating at 173,000, The Bolt Report at 10am was rating at 143,000. The combined figures have shifted recently; as of Nov 2012, the two screenings of The Bolt Report were rating at an average of 272,000 viewers as opposed to 261,000 viewers for screenings of Insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ren ault16 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 February 2013
Andrew is a permanent guest on the 2GB Nights with Steve Price Programme

Malcolmpruys (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, but please provide a source next time. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Linkspam / external link
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)
 * 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)

Court orders
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)

Stolen generations
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elstitch (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC) 12:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"fair-skinned Aborigine"
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elstitch (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)] ([13:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014 Stolen generations
The current paragraph is simplistic and wrong in fact. Please change by inserting: Bolt's challenge to name ten individuals was made live during a radio programme on 3AW (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/opinion/be-a-manne-and-name-just-10/story-e6frfifx-1111112126739), for which Manne was not prepared. In 2006, Manne provided Bolt with the names of 260 children removed, including in Queensland (with evidence that under the Industrial Schools and Reformatory Act of 1865, being Aboriginal was in itself evidence of neglect for the purposes of removal) and The Northern Territory (which children were never taken before a Court)(http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2011/10/24/1319413522/name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt). In the same year Bolt was provided by Manne with extensive documentary evidence, including contemporaneous written evidence from people involved in the formulation and implementation of these policies, of the racial basis for the removal of children of mixed descent from their aboriginal families (http://www.themonthly.com.au/files/stolen.pdf). Bolt has continued to publish articles ignoring or misrepresenting this evidence (eg http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_death_of_the_stolen_generations_myth).

Elstitch (talk) 09:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  14:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The current entry relies heavily on Bolt himself for evidence of matters presented as fact, when he has been found in various Courts of law to have been dishonest and defamatory in relation to matters of race amongst other things. Change the current paragraph to the following more accurate and neutral paragraph (amendments in bold):


 * Bolt has frequently clashed with Robert Manne, Professor of Politics at La Trobe University, about the Stolen Generation. Bolt claims there were no large-scale removals of children "for purely racist reasons". Bolt challenged Manne to "name just 10" children stolen for racial reasons during a live radio programme on 3AW (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/opinion/be-a-manne-and-name-just-10/story-e6frfifx-1111112126739), for which Manne was not prepared.  In 2006, Manne provided Bolt with the names of 260 children removed, including in Queensland (with evidence that under the Industrial Schools and Reformatory Act of 1865, being Aboriginal was in itself evidence of neglect for the purposes of removal) and The Northern Territory (which children were never taken before a Court)(http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/robert-manne/2011/10/24/1319413522/name-ten-journalism-andrew-bolt).  Manne argued that Bolt's views on the subject constitute a case of historical denialism. Bolt alleged many instances of contemporary Aboriginal children being left "in grave danger that we would not tolerate for children of any other race because we are so terrified of the 'stolen generations' myth." In 2006 Bolt was provided by Manne with extensive documentary evidence, including contemporaneous written evidence from people involved in the formulation and implementation of these policies, of the racial basis for the removal of children of mixed descent from their aboriginal families (http://www.themonthly.com.au/files/stolen.pdf). Bolt has continued to publish articles ignoring or misrepresenting this evidence (eg http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_death_of_the_stolen_generations_myth).    Elstitch (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am sympathetic to Elstitch's request, but the last sentence - "Bolt has continued to publish articles ignoring or misrepresenting this evidence" - is a strong claim requiring appropriate evidence - i suggest it would require several high quality reliable sources (eg. not newspaper opinion pieces unless by qualified researchers in the field) stating that Bolt is ignoring and/or misrepresenting the evidence. The citation to his blog comments is not reliable in this context. The rest of the edits with their sources look potentially sound. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then, do others agree that the article should be factually accurate? Manne provided more than 50 names.  There is a reference provided for this.  The figure of 50 is not in the Bolt article which is the only current reference.  In re the heavy reliance on Bolt himself as a reference, I note Hamiltonstone seems to agree that newspaper opinion pieces by unqualified persons are unacceptable. I also again note that Bolt has been found in the Eatock case to have published material which was wrong in fact and which distorted the truth, and in Popovic to have been either dishonest or grossly careless.  Further in that light I think the change from "noted" to "alleged" should be uncontroversial.  I'll drop the last sentence, as I would probably have to collate Bolt's relevant articles myself.  Elstitch (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any reliable sources here, just a primary source from Manne launching yet another personal attack on Bolt. Bolt has debunked Manne on a number of occasions, mostly through pointing out the lack of good sources. Unless we have something that is objective and impartial, we shouldn't rely on personal opinion pieces such as blog posts from either. BLP applies here. --Pete (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014 - "litigation"
This is a meaninglessly & needlessly general heading. Please change to "Breach of The Anti-Discrimination Act". This is an accurate summation of the result. Further, Bolt and The Herald & Weekly Times had avenues of appeal open to them which they have chosen not to pursue. Bolt's entry, after all, is not titled "A Tabloid Op Ed Writer". This heading gives the appearance of obfuscation.

Please add at the end of the third sentence "..., in relation to certain named individuals who had in fact identified as Aboriginal for their entire lives." (Ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html, para 10).

Please add at the end of the paragraph: "Section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act provides exemptions to the restrictions in section 18C for comment made "reasonably and in good faith [which is] a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest." (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18d.html)  Justice Bromberg found that the exemptions did not apply to Bolt's articles because they "contained errors of fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language". (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2011/1103.html, para 23)."

Elstitch (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done the first part of your edit request mainly because the section above the section in question is also about litigation. I would have no objection to an editor with more knowledge of this subject rearranging all of the legal cases under a "Litigation" section title if that was more appropriate.
 * I am leaving this edit request open for other editors to respond to the other two parts of this request. Or I might come back to them at a later time. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the article is, Bolt's factually inaccurate mischaracterization of the applicant and others stands. I think it in the public interest to publish this quick summary of Bolt & Herald & Weekly Times' breach, and also why it fell outside the exception for political speech.Elstitch (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Padlock-silver-open.svg Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sailor Sing 07:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing more primary sources quoted here. It's not our business to interpret legal matters - we need to find a reliable source, otherwise we are synthesising. Again, BLP applies - we need impeccable sources. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Seven years
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)

Andrew Nut
Due to some of his "interesting" ideas some people think he has the wrong surname.Frank Hargrave (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * 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)

Blog readership
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)

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)

August 2013
As it stands, there really is nothing interesting about the blog section. Users made over the top comments. They added a moderation policy. This is par for the course for most forums. What's the interest here? We don't have any sources making any interesting claims, do we?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Bolt's blog is a popular and integral part of his media presence. The fact that he has it and it's well-patronised is notable, not that it's a blog like other blogs. It is advertised as "Australia’s most-read political blog" and it is syndicated. There's plenty of mentions from non-Murdoch sources. The ABC, for instance, describes him as a columnist and blogger. I don't read it, but it looks like a rich part of Australia's political commentary. --Pete (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really an issue of weight, and what is being said. The commentary about the policies, do they add anything?  This section is just filler.  Is there anything notable about the blog,  as established by sources?  If not, why not just delete the section and say he has a popular blog, but closer to the top.  We don't need a whole section if it can be said in one or two sentences.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there is some undue weight given to the section, in terms of length/words, for what it actually describes. Could be covered in the external links section by providing the external link (as is already the case) and the whole article would not of lost almost anything in the way of content. As it stands we have three paragraphs not doing much more than telling us that Andrew Bolt's blog exits. AlanS (talk) 10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but if you could actually address the points raised, that would be helpful. I'm getting the feeling that deleting any material about the blog of Australia's best known blogger is something that you are doing for personal reasons, rather than anything laid down in policy. If you don't want to discuss your personal reasons, that's OK, I'll open this up to more opinions. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What points have you made? That he's a well known blogger?  That can be said in one sentence.  And I suggest you take 2 steps back.  I've never even heard of Bolt until a few days ago.  I've no love nor animus towards him whatsoever.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The indentation convention directs my remarks towards AlanS. As for you not knowing about Andrew Bolt, that's fine, but Wikipedia is more than the sum of any one person's knowledge or likes. That's what makes it such a useful resource. Using one sentence to say that Bolt is a well-known blogger is like using one sentence to say that George Clooney is a well-known actor. Yeeees, but you're missing the point. --Pete (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I've undone AlanS's removal of the whole section about the blog, then removed some obvious cruft. It now reads: The phrase "Australia's most-read political blog" comes from Bolt's profiles on the Herald-Sun website. I'm sure it is correct, but it would be good to have a substantial source for that claim. Does anyone have one?
 * In May 2005, Bolt established a web-only forum in which readers could offer comments, feedback and questions in response to his columns. He posted some of these comments, together with brief responses, in the late afternoon of every business day, on the Herald Sun website. Bolt's forum changed to a more conventional blog format in July 2006.
 * The blog covers a wide variety of topics, including climate change, Australian politics, the ABC and issues concerned with multiculturalism and Islam. Comments are open but are moderated to remove defamation, obscenities and so on. &lt;ref>Andrew Bolt, commenting on moderation policy (at "30 October 2007 (09:01pm)"): "Dumb abuse gets you snipped, but dumb posts don't."&lt;/ref> It is now Australia's most-read political blog, usually getting millions of hits per month. &lt;ref>&lt;/ref>

Another problem is that the source for "millions of hits per month" is way out of date. If I recall correctly, Bolt was getting over 2,000,000 hits per month on his blog 2 or 3 years ago. Does anyone know what sort of hits he gets now? Preferably with a good source? If so, please fix my work.

BTW, I think Bolt's blog is a significant part of the history of journalism, as I've explained elsewhere on this talk page. Removing all mention of it would badly degrade the article. Cheers, CWC 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Further thought: here's an even shorter version:
 * In May 2005, Bolt established a web-only forum in which readers could offer comments, feedback and questions in response to his columns. He posted some of these comments, together with brief responses, in the late afternoon of every business day, on the Herald Sun website.
 * Bolt's forum changed to a more conventional blog format in July 2006. It is open for comments, with moderation. It is now Australia's most-read political blog.
 * What do other editors think? CWC 14:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems acceptable. But I don't think it would justify its own section.AlanS (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, CWC! I'll see if I can hunt up some cites. AlanS, you need to stop deleting stuff you don't like or know nothing about. And edit-warring during discussion. --Pete (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pete you need to cease claiming I'm doing this that or the other because of some secret motive only you are aware off and WP:AGF. AlanS (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you now reverting to the old three paragraphs that there is not consensus for when you have agreed to the new one paragraph here? AlanS (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you going to address my comments at all Pete? Please explain how three paragraphs are justified to talk about one external link? AlanS (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Your comments boil down to a concern of undue weight, claiming that three paragraphs are not needed to explain one external link to Bolt's blog. The blog is notable because it is claimed to be Australia's most widely-read political blog - I see no reason to doubt this, but we are looking for independent sources - it has caused controversies of its own, and it is influential in its own right. Andrew Bolt is described in this article and others, not because he has a blog like tens of thousands of others in Australia, but because it is a blog that is notable in its own right. We could legitimately have an entire article devoted to the blog. It has a wider readership than many newspapers, which have articles of their own. --Pete (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no suggestion at all that the blog is un-notable. However using three paragraphs to establish its existence is excessive. If you feel it could legitimately have an entire article devoted to it feel free to write that article. AlanS (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If the blog is notable in its own right as you suggest, then there should be sources stating the impact and reach the blog has. Without it, having its own section adds undue weight.  And using a stats to drive home a point of the reach is original research, unless a source draws this conclusion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS repeatedly deleting notable section
Looking at two successive reversions by AlanS, I'm seeing edit summaries of: 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)
 * edit as per talk consensus and
 * That is the exact wording that you agreed to in talk discussion. Cease edit warring.
 * You didn't write "Thanks, CWC! I'll see if I can hunt up some cites."? AlanS (talk) 12:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Out of court settlement
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2017 Melbourne assault
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)

External links modified
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)

Small words missing--an increasingly common mistake
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)


 * Good catch. Thanks. I've fixed it. CWC 03:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Pell Phrasing?
Was checking something else and noted the Pell paragraph. It seems to be written as militantly and inflammatorily as possible. IMHO it needs a rewrite, especially considering that an appeal is planned which could negate the verdict of the 2nd jury. In light of that I suggest:

In early 2019, Bolt sparked controversy after questioning the guilty verdict against Cardinal George Pell for child sexual abuse, stating that “I am not a Catholic or even a Christian. He is a scapegoat, not a child abuser. In my opinion.” and that “In my opinion, this is our own OJ Simpson case, but in reverse. A man was found guilty not on the facts but on prejudice...Cardinal George Pell has been falsely convicted of sexually abusing two boys in their early teens. That’s my opinion, based on the evidence", he went on to contend that the successful prosecutions case was “flimsy” and that the conviction was the result a “vicious” smear that formed part of a “sinister” campaign against the cardinal, adding that Pell was being made to "pay for the sins made by his church”.

My changes are mostly minor and I think the paragraph still needs a lot of work - it all hangs off a single article which isn't even the actual source of the quotes, but at least it's a start. I'll leave this in talk, see if I get any response, then make the proposed basic changes if nobody suggests anything better. 人族 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No way. He is clearly defending Pell, the quotes are clear, he is not questioning the verdict he is declaring that Pell is innocent, that is defending. Questioning would be more like "is it possible that Pell has been falsely convicted?" rather than what Bolt actually tweeted, that "Cardinal George Pell has been falsely convicted" that's a statement of defense, not a question. The one source is more than sufficient, no need for more than one if the content is supported by a strong citation as per WP:OVERCITE. It is a very strong citation, written by a highly respected veteran journalist, Amanda Meade who has been a journalist since 1989, and has worked for some of Australia's most respected news outlets including the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the ABC and the Guardian - the quotes are verbatim, a quick google search will confirm this. Arguing that he is only questioning the verdict is clearly and demonstrably false. Bacondrum (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The fact that an appeal may occur is irrelevant to most legal matters concerning Pell. At this point he has been found guilty and imprisoned. His legal status is exactly the same as any other convicted prisoner. HiLo48 (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he's been convicted and sentenced to six years in prison. The appeal is irrelevant, there's no guarantees it will even happen, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The suggested edit sounds as though it is driven by bias to me. Bacondrum (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * RoFL. You're the wrong one to be talking bias Bacondrum. Looks like you have a history of confusing Nazi, Far Right, and mainstream. Bolt has acknowledged the possibility of Pell being guilty but based on the facts as they appear - a he said she said situation with claims at odds with logic, Bolt believes Pell. I still don't think defend is quite the right term but looks like Bolt has used the term defence in an article explaining his position: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/why-i-wont-shut-up-about-pell/news-story/95a2c02672d851f95d4f5b749f92f621.


 * "I knew defending Cardinal George Pell could get me lynched" - Andrew Bolt. Nuff said. You have no consensus or basis for changes. My past editing is in the past, please stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks Bacondrum (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * HiLo48, I agree the appeal is irrelevant to this article, but is it irrelevant to Bolt's position? The conviction of 2 other priests were recently overturned by appeals courts so the possibility that the 2nd jury's verdict is wrong is > 0. If you don't like my proposed change how would you suggest the section be modified? As it stands it reads like a clumsy attack piece which doesn't fit with the goals of Wikipedia. 人族 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Bolt himself said "I knew defending Cardinal George Pell could get me lynched", he is absolutely defending him - and that is in his own words. You appear to be attempting to portray Bolt in the most positive light possible. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, as HiLo said he "has been found guilty and imprisoned. His legal status is exactly the same as any other convicted prisoner" that's a fact, he is currently a convicted child sexual abuser, if that changes, you can add that Pell has had his conviction over turned and Bolt has been vindicated...failing that, it is a fact that Bolt has been defending (in his own words) a convicted child sex abuser. I hope you understand, it's nothing personal, you just can't edit the page based on what you think might happen in the future Bacondrum (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, this "As it stands it reads like a clumsy attack piece which doesn't fit with the goals of Wikipedia." is merely your opinion, wikipedia deals in the verifiable not opinion, so back it up or back away

Denier
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)


 * 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)