Talk:Tara June Winch

"Other" section
"Andrew Bolt used Winch's name in two controversial articles about "political" Aborigines. Bolt asserted that Winch and other fair skinned Aborigines claimed aboriginality to advance their careers. The Australian court system has since ruled that the articles were inflammatory, offensive and contravened the Racial Discrimination Act.."

This section should remain in the article - since it just happens to be about the subject, Tara Winch, and how she was the "victim" of Racial Discrimination. This has not only gotten media attention, (note: a link has been removed as it is a broken link), (eg. The Sydney Morning Herald) and also the attention of the Federal Court of Australia.

User: John Nevard: This section is one of the only sections in the article that has been referenced, and if you were so worried about it being not substantially sourced, why didn't you try and source it better (instead of removing the whole section)? Better yet, since this is a WP:BLP, why didn't you remove the Tara June Winch section? Since that just happens to be fully unsourced. Out of curiousity, you have edited the Andrew Bolt article, quite a number of times. Is it a WP:COI or what? -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 05:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you would know if you had done a modicum of research, Winch didn't even join the case against Bolt. It is utterly irrelevant to a biography of her. The matter is discussed on the Andrew Bolt article, and others involved in the legal matter, because it relates to those persons. As far as I'm aware, there is no conflict of interest in actually doing proper research and complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Nevard (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So it's just a happy coincidence you came here and saved the day, by removing sourced content. Okay, I'll be getting more opinions on this. Thank You -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 05:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or to make things more easier, I'll do source-finding for the soon-to-be "Other" section, myself. Already got a few :) -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 05:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Any re-addition of that information violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. How could negative claims proven in court to be wrong possibly be important enough to belong in the biography of a living person?  Perhaps that info belongs in Bolt's article (though not necessarily with Winch's name), but it certainly does not belong here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to know. However, just because you can find some sources that mention both Winch, and the Bolt matter, does not mean the Bolt matter is relevant in any way to this article, which is a biography of an author. Policy on biographies of living persons is rigorously enforced, and I fail to see how any of the sources out there are going to satisfy some pretty key requirements of that policy. Nevard (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)