Talk:Oz (magazine)

Magazines Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Australia Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Oz (magazine) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Freedom of speech

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merge

Oz (magazine) and OZ magazine clearly should be merged. I have no strong opinion on which direction the merge should go. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

All things being equal, I guess this is the better title, even though the other is the older article. OZ magazine will become a redirect. Merging the histories would only be confusing, so the history of the other branch of work is preserved at [[1]]. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:51, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Lacking access to good sources, and finding contradictions between the articles, I am removing certain details about the 1964 Australia trial which I believe may be wrong and cannot verify. Please, if someone has citation for these, indicate where they are verified from, and restore.

"Because the trio had been poorly advised and had pleaded guilty to an earlier minor charge, this second obscenity trial..."
- What earlier minor charge? And I believe that 1964 was their first obscenity trial. I think someone got the '64 and '71 trials confused, but I'm ready to stand corrected.
"There was a major public outcry and benefit concerts, and the trio was finally acquitted on appeal after it was found that the magistrate had grossly misdirected the jury."
- This is verbatim true about the '71 trial, but it is here without further detail on the '64 trial. If it is true, can someone please fill in a few details and restore?
Neville and Walsh received sentences of six months, although Sharp was given a reduced sentence of four months because the magistrate found him to be of 'reduced intelligence'.
- Again, this sounds awfully like what happened in '71 (with Dennis's intelligence being impugned). I'm guessing the author got confused

Jmabel | Talk 03:07, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

The above points have still not been addressed. Tyrenius 03:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trials of Oz

There were two trials - the first and the sixth issue of Oz magazine in Sydney were considered obscene by the Vice Squad. At the first trial the editors pleaded guilty, at the second they pleaded not guilty and appealed the original guilty verdict.

Sharp received a lesser sentence, I've never come across the idea that this was because of any imputed defect. I think it was because he was the art director rather than the editor, who were held to be more responsible.

Richard Neville's 'Hippie Hippie Shake' is a good source for details about dates, the trials and Oz in both Sydney and London.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.2.85 (talk • contribs) .

Images up for deletion

Please check the image pages for OZ covers, as they are being marked for deletion and need a full fair use rationale. Tyrenius (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Homosexuals"

"As Richard Neville said in his opening statement, other issues had been assembled by Homosexuals^{[clarification needed]} and members of the Female Liberation Movement."

The commented out text says "correct usage in this context". Why? If no explanation is given I'll change this. It sounds bizarre and semi-homophobic. At the very least the context must be explained to the reader. Popcornduff (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the note because 'gay' would be anachronistic. The UK wing of the Gay Liberation Front was not founded until a year later, and the modern sense of 'gay' was not quite in common use. As Oz had liberation as its ethos, the edition is unlikely to have been prejudiced, but the issue in question (No,.23 August/September 1969) was titled Homosexual Oz. My note could perhaps be clearer. Philip Cross (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, it is appreciated.

I'm afraid I disagree, though. We are editing Wikipedia in the year 2014, when using the noun "Homosexuals" (especially capitalised as a proper noun) has a slightly homophobic whiff to it. The fact that this is not how the term was used in 1969 is irrelevant as far as I can see. We are writing now, today, about events of the past. Popcornduff (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using a capital 'H' is an embarrassing gaffe, but avoiding anachronistic usage is common practice. References to poets of the great war are much more common than poets of World War One, for example. More specifically to Wikipedia, although the Manual of Style does not deal with the issue of anachronistic usage directly several sub-pages do. See for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints#Avoidance of anachronistic terminology, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#Flag icons and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Nationality (biographies). Enough to allow for the use of 'homosexual' in the two contexts it was formerly used in this article.

While Wikipedia is not censored, it is conceivable 'homosexual' might now qualify as a cortentious word, but the words included in the linked section are adjectives or abstract nouns and do not include homosexual, let alone the 'n' word. See also Wikipedia:Offensive material which advises against removing offensive words purely on the basis of their offensiveness. Philip Cross (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of your examples seem analogous. If this were an article about attitudes towards homosexuality in history, or something, then using the term "homosexuals" as a noun might be a different matter, referring to the concepts and attitudes of the time (ie homosexuality as pathology). In this article, I see no need for it. None of this has anything to do with censorship, by the way; it's about maintaining a neutral encyclopaedic tone. Popcornduff (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Oz (magazine)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs amny more inline citations.--Grahamec 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as 3 users agreed to a speedy move. (non-admin closure) JE98 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC) JE98 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OZ (magazine) → Oz (magazine) – Per MOS:ABBR, MOS:CAPS, MOS:TITLES, MOS:TM. This is not an acronym. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this done as a technical? No contest. Dicklyon (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it. WP:TR In ictu oculi (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Technical works with this, this type of upper-cased magazine title would be first-letter upper case and the rest lower. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oz Trial: New source

Here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/aug/04/how-the-oz-obscenity-trial-inspired-protest-art -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Lennon section … missing information?

The section ends with, John Lennon mentioning the change of the song title “God Save Oz” to “God Save Us” … and then neglects to give the details. Possibly a bad edit from a previous version of this article? Definitely needs fixing. 75.106.32.81 (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]