Talk:Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001

POV
This article is written in a tone that disparages that act rather than providing an encyclopedic summary.--Peta 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Me and United States editor have recified the problem.Prester John 05:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you haven't. It was still just as bad as before. Everything I just removed was completely slanted against the act - heck, it even linked to a page trying to raise funds to oppose it. Rebecca 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it standard practice in Wikipedia to delete referenced and sourced material that a particular editor thinks is POV? I thought the aim of the project was to create and adjust, not just slash and burn when things don't go your way.Prester John 05:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Reducing the article to a neutral stub is about the only choice when the biased material, while referenced, takes up essentially the entire article. As it stood, it was essentially a candidate for speedy deletion for being an attack piece. The first deleted line (and the third of the article) was a very negative quote from one lone MP. It was followed by a very one-sided summary of the Catch the Fire case, with an out-of-context quote from the judge taking pride of place, and a conclusion asserting (in the wake of the overturning of the original decision) "This decision represents a significant victory for religious freedom." This, in turn, was followed by a very slanted summary of a second complaint under the act which, despite being described as vexatious from pretty much all quarters, was treated as if a finding had been made against the Salvos under the law, or was a serious prospect. The next sentence featured condemnation of the laws from a conference of "leaders from Melbourne's largest churches", conveniently omitting, amongst other things, that the conference was organised by Catch the Fire. Finally, the last sentence puts the most negative spin possible on Bracks' media campaign. How on earth can you possibly claim that anything there is neutral? Rebecca 05:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

About 8 years later, I'm adding a neutrality tag. The article is entirely biased against the act, with almost all quotes in italic, and almost exclusively written by a sockpuppet. Orthogonal1 (talk) 06:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I removed biased, unreferenced, unfounded or irrelevant claims, removed dead links and references. I think it's Okay to remove POV/neutrality template now. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2018

Blake Article
I created a Further Reading heading and put in there an article in the June 2007 ALJ by Garth Blake, which concentrates on the Act and the Catch the Fire case. It would be great if a lawyer were able to read the ALJ article and see if any contributions can be made from it to the Wikipedia article. I am not a lawyer, and much of the article was lost on me. Judging by the concluding paragraphs, Blake is not a fan of the legislation. But at least it is a legal point of view, and its publication in ALJ indicates that it is not extremist or too partisan. --Iacobus 23:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)