Talk:Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975

Disputed edits
These edits are wildly biased and cannot stand as is.

These edits, respectively
 * introduce a grammatical error
 * introduce an unsourced claim that "The Section has been controversial, particularly in relation to its use against journalists", which can't be sourced because it's nonsense
 * changes alleged discrimination to "segregation", which...again, you won't find a source for because it's bizarre

The last change seems okay now due to changes made in between the reversions that I'd missed (it wasn't originally) - but the changes to the first half need to go. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry Drover's Wife, it would help more than a little if you could acquaint yourself with the issues before deleting extensive text and making comments like those above. I am not sure how you could not be aware that the section has been controversial. In any case, sources are now provided to the ABC, The Guardian and the Australian Law Reform Commission. We could probably find 100's more. As for use of the word "segregation", you will find with the briefest reference to the case referred to that the term matches exactly the language used by the student in question: ie he wrote on Facebook that his university was "fighting segregation with segregation" and for that he was taken to court under s 18c. Your comments above are a step up from deleting multiple uncontroversial paragraphs for no apparent reason - but I still can't quite understand the nature of your objections, or how you propose to improve the article.Observoz (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Don't be obtuse - the section has obviously been controversial, but the "particularly in relation to its use against journalists" is absolute spin (and unsourceable). And sorry, I should have said you won't find a neutral source referring to it as "segregation" (in Wikipedia-voice, not as depicting one party's view), as opposed to the language you took out. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So when you first arrived and deleted 911 characters without any explanation and then returned and deleted a further 3,784 etc‎ it is because you disagreed with about 60 characters? Don't do that again, apart from being against the rules (deleting without explanation) it has just wasted both of our time, as a simple discussion on the 60 characters would have been far easier. It is self-evident that use of the Section against journalists has caused particular controversy, and sources aplenty can be provided. However, it is not vital to make that point in that place, so I will not object to the removal from the introduction of the words: "particularly in relation to its use against journalists". As for your desire to delete "segregation", I can't agree at this stage, as that is the precise language that the action was brought over. So I will improve sourcing so people know that this is where the language comes from, rather than from the "opinion" of an editor.Observoz (talk) 23:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This series of edits continues to have serious problems with neutral point of view and playing fast and loose with the truth to better portray one's opinion. "Among the controversial cases: a judge who had been active in Labor Party politics found against conservative journalist Andrew Bolt after Bolt wrote a series of articles critical of welfare eligibility being linked to ethnic background" is absolute spin - it randomly throws in an implicit attack on a judge in Wikipedia-voice and writing a "series of articles critical of welfare eligibility being linked to ethnic background" is absolutely not why Bolt was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act. This is also a problem with the continued attempts to refer to Bolt as "journalist", with the implication that he reports news rather than being an opinion columnist.

Again, there are obvious problems with the QUT description: "A group of students faced a three year legal battle for commenting on social media against "segregation" on campus favouring indigenous students at the Queensland University of Technology" is a description that could have been written by the students' defence barrister. It isn't neutral in the slightest and serves only to argue an opinion rather than to actually explain what happened to readers. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again. The word "journalist" has no non-neutral implication (see below). The section you highlight of course is dealing with "controversies", so obviously what makes them controversial must be identified. For example, the innocuous nature of the student remarks about "segregation" is precisely what makes it controversial and why journalists as diverse at David Marr, Andrew Bolt and Tony Jones are in agreement that the treatment of the student was wrong. Similarly, the fact that the judge in the Bolt case has stood for Labor pre-selection is relevant and not random at all - as Labor Senator Kimberley Kitching has said here (I presume you do not propose to go the Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption and delete all reference to the recusal application brought against Justice Heyden for his considerably more distant involvement with a Liberal Party function). Observoz (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The definition of a journalist
Dear user:The Drover's Wife, please note that the Oxford dictionary defines "journalist" simply as "a person employed in writing for a newspaper or magazine". There is therefore no suspect implication in applying the term to Andrew Bolt. It is a neutral term. Observoz (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note also, that in the case in question (Eatock v Bolt) the judge states in black and white "Mr Bolt is a journalist". Observoz (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger into RDA page
I propose this article be merged into the main article on the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), as much of the content overlaps with that page, it is better dealt with there, and it is more accurately stated in that page. As for the Bolt case, I suggest that should have its own page, as most notable Australian law cases do. Lawarticles (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Disagree. And was a little shocked to discover so much work had been effectively deleted. This page remains relevant and independent of broader subject on Act page. Observoz (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , Lawarticles has been blocked as a sock. --220  of  Borg 04:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)