Talk:Section 25 of the Constitution of Australia

IP user repeatedly editing article to reflect a non neutral POV
An IP editor, currently with the address 202.86.32.122, has over the course of the year repeatedly introduced unsourced and irrelevant information to the article seemingly to promote a specific POV that is both non neutral and not reflected in reliable independent sources. The article has been changed so substantially across so many edits that it likely requires a substantial cleanup to restore it to a neutral POV. Also concerns about WP:OWN.

Kb.au (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Kb.au agree 100%, unfortunately it's turned into a bit of an essay and is way off-topic. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * >"You can't just delete history!!!!"
 * >immediately deletes entire talk page history
 * You don't seem to get what Wikipedia is for. This is not your personal page or a place to argue for your personal view. Go write a blog post or an article instead. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

202.86.32.122 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Thank you for opening up the conversation to the entire world. I'm happy for 21st Century students around the globe to see what type of race laws are still enshrined within the Constitution of Australia :)

and I'm quite interested to know who Kb.au and Ivar the Boneful are? Do you share a conflict of interest? Why do you publish my IP address and no others? And how can you just delete an entire section titled 'Constitutional Recognition' and think that you are right with your opinions? I would prefer that you accept section 25 has been reviewed on many levels, over time, and has always been seen as outdated and should be repealed. Why do you argue that international institutions, platforms and norms, or even comparative examples of constitutional reform are a 'blog'? I'm just interested in why you are trying to defend section 25 when the wikipedia page was so undeveloped that I wonder if editors are intentionally deleting links to arguments they don't like?? Just a question, since you shoved my IP address up for the world to scrutinise.. I deleted the conversation because it is personal when you put my IP address for everyone to see and then both argue against my advancement of the wikipedia page, and call it an essay or a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.32.122 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't want your IP address to show up, you can create an account here and pick your own username. Again, you're misunderstanding what the purpose of Wikipedia is. We have to maintain a neutral point of view. We do not openly argue for one position or the other, but we can report on arguments that have been published elsewhere in reliable sources. In fact, we already have - under Section 25 of the Constitution of Australia. What you're doing is WP:SYNTHESIS - you're not providing any reliable sources linking the repeal of section 25 to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or comparing it to apartheid or Jim Crow, or linking it to the Uluru Statement. These are fine in an opinion piece or essay arguing for repeal, but Wikipedia is not a place for persuasive writing. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

202.86.32.122 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC) Thanks very much for the tips for young players. But if I was to go back to the beginning of 2020 with the section 25 Wikipedia page, it barely had any links or references and the ones it did have - didn't even work! All I wanted was a broader, expanded argument in relation to ALL aspects of section 25, and not a narrow exposé from one or two selected articles. There are many points of view and I think you need to put the 'moot points' into context, like Jim Crow, etc. In relation to the 14th Amendment, as section 25 is adapted from, the 14th Amendment didn't work! Pure and simple - and there is plenty of literature from the USA to support that fact.. all it was is a simple sentence to highlight the challenges that race laws create within all levels of law within a country, comparatively speaking, under Federal, State and Local jurisdictions for the franchise. Here are some of the additional links under Constitutional Recognition for the record, and remember that we are talking about defending democracy:

"Getting rid of section 25". Referendum Council. 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2021. "The Conversation about Constitutional Recognition" (PDF). ANTaR. 2021. Retrieved 28 October 2021. "What is Reconciliation". Reconciliation Australia. 2021. Retrieved 20 April 2021. Costar, Brian (2003). "'Odious and outmoded'? Race and Section 25 of the Constitution". Melbourne Publishing Group. "Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". United Nations OHCHR. 2021. Retrieved 5 January 2022. "International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination". United Nations OHCHR. 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021. "Department of Economic and Social Affairs Indigenous Peoples". United Nations. 2021. Retrieved 22 March 2021. "Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination". United Nations OHCHR. 2021. Retrieved 25 March 2021. "Country visits". United Nations OHCHR. 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2021. "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples". United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021. "The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa". South African Government. 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021. "Apartheid Legislation 1850s-1970s". South African History Online. 2021. Retrieved 21 April 2021. "Congress and the Voting Rights Act of 1965". National Archives. 2019. Retrieved 12 August 2021. "Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982". Government of Canada. 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2021. "Constitution Act, 1982 Section 35". University of British Columbia. 2021. Retrieved 11 October 2021. "Human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi". New Zealand Human Rights Commission. 2021. Retrieved 30 October 2021. "Redfern Speech" (PDF). ANTaR. 1992. Retrieved 10 October 2021. "National Apology". National Museum of Australia. 2021. Retrieved 10 October 2021. "The Barunga Statement". AIATSIS. 1988. Retrieved 23 April 2021. "Uluru Statement from the Heart" (PDF). Referendum Council. 2017. Retrieved 22 April 2021. "Other proposals for constitutional change". Parliament of Australia. 2021. Retrieved 15 March 2021. "A Referendum on Indigenous Constitutional Recognition" (PDF). Constitutional Reform Unit, University of Sydney Law School. 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2021. "About Constitutional Recognition". Australian Human Rights Commission. 2021. Retrieved 13 August 2021. "Constitutional Recognition". National Indigenous Australians Agency. 2021. Retrieved 13 August 2021. "Constitutional recognition of Aboriginal people". Creative Spirits. 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021. "Why constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples matters for health". Lowitja Institute. 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021. "Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution". ANTaR. 2021. Retrieved 30 September 2021. "Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution". RANZCP. 2018. Retrieved 1 October 2021. "Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" (PDF). Australian Human Rights Commission. 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2021.

Even professional organisations like RANZCP have a say on section 25 and it is well known by the entire Australian community. It has been discussed for literally a century and it is about time that we accept our history - both good and bad - and open the discussion up for students in the 21st Century, who never lived a day without the internet to get ideas to research simple assignments for a teacher on the Constitution. 202.86.32.122 (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

202.86.32.122 (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC) See: https://www.ranzcp.org/news-policy/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-recognition

IP user again editing article to reflect a non neutral POV
The IP editor with the address 202.86.32.122, has continued to reintroduced unsourced and irrelevant information to the article to put forward a specific POV that is both non neutral and not reflected in reliable independent sources across multiple years.

Whenever editors including myself, @User:ITBF and User:Rod mcinnes revert the edits or remove unsourced or irrelevant information from the edits, the editor invariably reverts the changes and accuses the other editors of "whitewashing history", last time adding "caucacity through denying genocide, racism and crimes against humanity - biased removal of facts".

I have since the last talk page entry attempted to cleanup the article to restore some semblance of neutrality and accuracy but the IP editor continues to revert such changes. I'm not sure what the way forward is. Kb.au (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)