Talk:Tim Blair

Mark Lawson

User Philip Cross (talk · contribs) recently removed Mark Lawson from the list of frequently-critiqued journalists, with the edit summary "only two references to Lawson does not justify his inclusion". A quick search found 7 mentions of Lawson since December 2004: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. There were several earlier mentions, including The Guardian's Plastic Turkey. (BTW, Has Lawson ever admitted that he was wrong about that notorious bird?) So I'm restoring Lawson to the list. CWC(talk) 04:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Blair's Law

Anyone think we could include a small explanation of 'Blair's Law' here? See here at Urban Dictionary.81.220.72.184 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Kisdm001

Good idea. I've had a go at it. Cheers, CWC(talk) 09:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an entry in Urban dictionary justifies entry into his wikipedia article, as per notability criteria. Recurring dreams 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that urbandictionary.com establishes notability (I'd say it clearly does not), only that it explains the concept. I say that "Blair's Law" (1) is not a law, (2) is a minor meme amongst conservative and libertarian bloggers and so (3) needs to be mentioned in an encyclopedic article about Tim Blair. I've put a rewritten version of the deleted section back into the article. I also restored the bit about that darned turkey being real, because I think it's important to point out that the New York Times (of all organisations) says that Blair is right (and a steady stream of fake-turkey-believing journalists are wrong).

I'll give you the turkey and the bit about "alarmists". But including Blair's Law? You've got to be kidding, don't you? Just take a look at the references you cited. They come nowhere near establishing notability. I elliot 15:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recuring dreams seems to have a WP:POINTy agenda (see [8]) against Tim Blair, and seem intent on systematically wrecking havoc upon this article. The claim he has concensus to remove "Blairs Law" is tenuous at best. He is determined in his POV that it is not notable and no collaboration with other editors will be entered into.Prester John 16:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you make such serious allegations, please provide more substantive evidence. In the Daily Telegraph page, I simply objected to the description of the subject in question as "high-profile." Indeed I supported its inclusion in the article (it's still there, is it not?). I made my point clear in the talk page, to which you did not choose to reply.

As for "systematically wrecking havoc," I have spent an inordinate amount of time protecting the Tim Blair article from countless attacks of vandalism (look at the article's recent history). Furthermore I have attempted to seek consensus, both on this article's talk page, and on your talk page (to which you haven't replied), while you have simply made this quite serious allegations against me. Recurring dreams 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Now getting back to the topic at hand (rather than personal attacks on other editors): Blair's law, and whether it should be included. Now the point has been made that it should be included as the entry on the subject must be encyclopedic: however although the subject's notability might be established, not everything related to that subject is automatically notable. I'm sure he and other bloggers have used phrases and comments regularly. But there doesn't seem to be widespread use of this phrase, at least not enough to gain notability as per wikipedia guidelines. Recurring dreams 02:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

While improving the article's format (mainly by using <ref>), I added the following paragraph about Blair's Law:

The phenonemon of far right and far left groups allying with extremist Islamists is sometimes called "Blair's Law" ("the ongoing process by which the world's multiple idiocies are becoming one giant, useless force"<ref>Post by Tim Blair (at an earlier blog), 23 May 2002</ref>) by conservative and libertarian bloggers.<ref>"Ted Rall, David Duke, Robert Fisk, Lyndon LaRouche, al-Ahram, Hitler, Noam Chomsky, Blair's Law, the Arab News, and Me", Frank Portman, Blogs of War, 15 May 2002</ref> <ref>"Why I am not Celebrating Today's News from Austria", Ben Ze'ev, Six Days blog, 21 February 2006</ref> <ref>"It's Not Just A Good Idea, It's Blair's Law", Ed Driscoll, 4 September 2006</ref> <ref>" Idiots of a Feather...", J. F. Beck, RWDB blog, 12 December 2006</ref>

I found more uses of "Blair's Law" in blog posts (and lots more in comments), but I got bored decided to stop after four. In fact, four is probably too many. How many should we use? Which do we drop? Cheers, CWC 18:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys sure that Blair's Law has anything to do with the Far Right? It struck me as an attack on the Left-wing and frankly, whilst they are known for anti-Semitism and bigotry, I don't see anybody from the far-right siding with the Islamists or the politically opposite end of the spectrum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.79.144.8 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 19 June 2010

Yes. Professional antisemites such as David Duke have been published by Arabic newspapers, as have anti-Israel left-wingers such as (IIRC) Noam Chomsky. Islamists have marched in protest alongside far-right Jew-haters and alongside far-left Zionist-haters; there have even been protests with far-right, far-left and Islamists marching together! CWC 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Media Watch and the anti-semites

I've just done a major edit. Among other things, I added a more balanced account of the latest attack on Blair by Media Watch. Here's a link I did not use: http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/inquiry_launched/. CWC 10:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And now I've just edited that paragraph back into shape. Please note that

1. MW did not use the R word (racist/racism) about timblair.net
2. If you are worried about a claim such as "Blair has often criticised MW", the proper response is to tag it (eg., with {{cn}}), not delete it.
3. Blair has often criticised MW. Typing "Media Watch" into the "Search by Keyword" box here got me 80 hits from his current blog; at least 20 are highly critical. (No, I did not check them all.)
4. In an article about a blogger, we do cite and quote posts by that blogger, even "personal commentary", as long as it is relevant etc.
5. AFAICT, all claims in that paragraph except "has often criticised [MW]", are backed by the cited news reports and blog posts.

Cheers, CWC 17:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the above, most of the responses from the Tim Blair blog should all be removed per WP:RS. I left one in to give his response, but having a blog does not give the subject of the article to have a running commentary on any issue. Furthermore, the Media Watch story did mention that the incident could violate racial vilification laws, so perhaps that should be put in instead, if you object to the use of the word "racism." Finally, again the paragraph that the subject "has often criticised [MW]" is not backed up by reliable, independant secondary sources. The news.com.au and the Australian article do count as RS, not his blog posts. Recurring dreams 08:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, timblair.net is a reliable source for what Tim Blair has written on his blog, which does include frequent criticism of Media Watch. CWC 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Blair's Viewpoint

The description of Tim Blair as a "conservative" commentator is misleading. Paul Kelly is conservative. John Howard is conservative. Kevin Rudd is conservative. I am conservative.

Blair, however, is radical. He sees himself as a crusader against the woolly-thinking left-wing status quo. He often seeks to offend his opponents personally rather than concentrating on the argument (a point which the article alludes to with the statement that Al Gore is a frequent target). His approach is not too far removed from the radio shock jocks.

I suggest that "conservative" be replaced by "right wing", "radical right wing", or "far right wing". Rightcitizen 13:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "conservative" used to mean "resistant to change", but in politics it now has a rather different meaning (or, more accurately, set of meanings) involving skepticism about utopian thinking, government programs, etc. See Conservatism and Conservatism in the United States. For example, John Howard is (almost) universally regarded as conservative, despite having made radical changes such as the GST. (I would agree with those who say that "Howard is socially conservative but economically liberal".)

A few people have tried to come up with alternate terms for this political stance, but none have gained wide acceptance. (The best, IMO, is "neoliberal", but not all "conservatives" are that keen on Hayek.) So it seems this double meaning of the word conservative is the best we can do :-[.

OTOH, "far right wing" means people like this, and "radical right wing" means stuff like this, this, or this. Blair is not one of these people; in fact, he often mocks them.

So we're down to "conservative" or "right wing". I say that that the former is slightly more specific, and oppose changing it. (Which is conservative of me, isn't it...) Cheers, CWC 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"Gadfly" would be more to the point. He is a mocker of the conventional pieties and power structure of the West's new_class,and an annoying pest to that herd. The "wing" is an outdated idea, perhaps more suited to letting us assess Rigthcitizen's intent in lumping Blair with neo-nazis, than to Blair.

ChrisPer 05:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Media Watch, continued

That Media Watch themselves left a vile comment up on their website is not just something Blair "alleged": we have a WP:RS (the Telegraph of 25/6/2007) saying so. So "noted" is NPOV and "alleged" is misleading.

Blair's extensive writings about climate change are aimed at (what he sees as) the alarmists and the hypocrites (often the same people), not at "those who believe in anthropogenic climate change" (a much larger group of people). As you would expect, he concentrates on the political and pop-cultural side of things, not on the science. So "climate change alarmists" is correct and the anodyne phrase is misleading.

Cheers, CWC 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Media Watch deny the comment left up was 'vile' or antisemitic or anything other than plain stupid. Blair most certainly alleged the comment was racist (or similar), and that allegation is not a clear-cut statement of fact. Also, the Telegraph is not a reliable source for stories about its own editors and columnists! "Noted" suggests dispassionate recording of uncontested facts, hardly the most apt description of the episode. "Alleged" is accurate and fair.

The wording re "alarmists" you keep re-inserting makes no mention of "(what he sees as)" and instead treats "alarmists" as a valid and impartial term when it is clearly neither. Either make it clear that "alarmists" is Blair's opinion, or try a neutral description of the subset of "those who believe in anthropogenic climate change" that he targets.

In an encyclopedia, anodyne is better than inflammatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.25 (talk) 03:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Later comments, after several more edits to the article:

(1) I haven't seen Media Watch's denial. Could you provide a link, please? I'd like to add it to the article.

(2) Actually, the Telegraph is a WP:RS here (and that report is quite correct; I saw the racism at Media Watch myself).

(3) I think the current choice of verbs (stated/alleged/noted/...) is NPOV.

(4) Anodyne is OK, but misleading is not. Blair attacks people for alarmism and hypocrisy re global warming, not just for believing in AGW.

Cheers, CWC 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"Islamofacism" is a controversial and inflammatory term. Adding "so-called" is legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.25 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. CWC 16:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark S. Lawson

I thought I should mention that the Mark Lawson mentioned above and in the article is not the Mark S. Lawson who works for the Australian Financial Review. CWC 21:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Crikey defamation info

CWC has repeatedly removed my edits regarding legal action taken by Tim Blair against Crikey, an Australian Internet media provider. Blair, through his lawyers, initiated the action against Crikey after it made an incorrect allegation pertaining to his blog. Crikey later retracted the allegation, apologised and agreed to an unspecified payout. The matter is widely known amongst the Australian blogging community and has been referred to twice in the Sydney Morning Herald, a major daily newspaper.

Tim Blair launching legal action against a media outlet is highly relevant, given his current employment as both a professional journalist and blogger. The issue is potentially controversial, given Blair's previous comments about "journalists sueing journalists". CWC is a regular commenter on Blair's blog, so his viewpoint on this is compromised. I contend that his edits are based more on POV and/or protecting Blair from possible embarrassment, than on any Wikipedia guidelines, and ask for a third-party ruling. Please also refer to User_talk:Niceperson907 for further dialogue on the matter. Niceperson907 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement over inclusion of information about legal action taken by Tim Blair against Crikey ):

Newspaper blogs are consider as acceptable as the newspaper itself as sources. However, in cases where it is an opinion and not a fact being stated, WP:NPOV says to attribute the opinion instead of stating as fact (e.g. "Sunday Morning Herald wrote ..."). Self-published sources can be used as facts about the author itself but not claims about third parties. In the case of Blair, if he is also a consider an expert, his opinion on third parties would generally be considered appropriate but with the conflict of interest in this case involving legal action on his part it should be neutrally presented with other reliable sources. Again proper attribution should be given if there is reason to doubt Blair or if other sources contradict him (e.g. "Blair wrote ..." )—Bagumba (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bagumba. Obviously it is the facts of this matter that should appear on Tim Blair, not opinions about the facts. My edits have (I think) recounted the facts, rather than editorialising about them. If they are embarrassing for Blair and/or Crikey then that is incidental. The problem is that CWC has removed the facts on the basis that they are referenced in a "gossip column". It is true that the references appeared in a column dedicated to asides and news tidbits, rather than news pages. Nevertheless the information appeared in a major daily newspaper, where there is fact-checking and editorial oversight. To describe the references as a "gossip column" and "full of snark" is inherently POV. And if the facts are incorrect then surely Tim Blair would have challenged them, and CWC could provide us with a reference to this challenge. Niceperson907 (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course facts are preferred, but as WP:POV notes, "Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will – by definition – be in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy." It is acceptable to have facts about opinions as long as they are presented neutrally.

It seems reasonable that the SMH column (whether it is a print version or a blog) should be considered reliable Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason I removed Niceperson907's edits is that they violate several Wikipedia policies, notably WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Please note his repeated removal of sourced claims, notably the fact that Crikey eventually apologized to Blair.

I have just edited the article to bring most of it into line with Wikipedia's rules. I will rewrite the Blair-vs-Crikey para (currently quite deceptive) in the near future. CWC 05:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have undone the edits by CWC again. His claims that the Crikey defamation paragraph breaches Wikipedia policies are baloney. Having had this paragraph affirmed by a third opinion from Bagumba, CWC has simply waited for a period of time then slunk back here to remove it. The information is referenced, verifiable and highly relevant to the article topic. As stated before, the user has identifiable links with Tim Blair and his objectivity here is compromised. If the user removes the Crikey defamation information again I shall report him to Wikipedia admins. Niceperson907 (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have re-edited the relevant paragraph, incorporating the edits by Chris Chittleborough. I am happy with the paragraph as it stands, as it gives a balanced view of the incident. Niceperson907 (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted Niceperson907's recent edits to the article, which all violate Wikipedia's rules (so many rules that I don't have time just now to list those violations). Note also that violation of WP:AGF and WP:BATTLE above.

As I mentioned in an edit summary, one problem is that the 31Mar2011 SMH gossip item has major errors of fact, casting doubt on whether it can be considered "Reliable".

Another major problem is that Niceperson907 keeps removing valid, sourced claims from the article, specifically those that reveal disgraceful behaviour by Crikey staff such as Jonathan Green and Jeremy Sear. For instance, Crikey has admitted that their claims that Blair sockpuppeted Crikey and his own blog were false, but Niceperson907's edits are carefully constructed to suggest that those claims are true. This edit is an example; the bit about Blair's marital status is in fact an attempt at WP:SYNTH (for details, email me).

It is possible that Niceperson907 has some connection to Crikey, in which case he or she needs to read WP:Conflict of interest carefully. In any case, he or she needs to pay more attention to (among others) WP:V and WP:BLP. More details later. Cheers, CWC 09:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned several times already, CWC is a conservative blogger who frequents the blog run by Tim Blair, the subject of this article. CWC has no objectivity with regards to this article and has continually tried to purge it of valid and relevant information.

CWC claims that I have "some connection to Crikey" and this is false. He claims that I constructed the paragraph to suggest that the 'sockpuppeting' claims against Tim Blair were true, and this is ridiculous, given that I actually inserted the paragraph regarding Blair's successful legal action. He claims that the Sydney Morning Herald column contains "major errors of fact" but cannot provide a third party or reference to verify this claim. He claims that Blair is one of the "few conservatives to become prominent in the Australian media" - a preposterous statement, considering that the Australian media contains people like Blair, Andrew Bolt, Greg Sheridan, Miranda Devine, Piers Ackerman, Janet Albrechtsen, Alan Howe, Alan Jones, Neil Mitchell, Chris Smith, Steve Price, Ray Hadley, and so on, and so on.

CWC edits this page and others with a clear political agenda. Most of the claims he makes here are baloney, and his edits are little more than an attempt to slavishly protect the subject of the article. Niceperson907 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User Niceperson907 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA who seems dedicated to using this article to harm Tim Blair's reputation and/or protect Crikey's reputation. (Crikey is a commercial venture, BTW.) I did not assert that N907 is connected to Crikey, only that he might be.

My last edit comment before N907 blindly reverted several hours work was (emphasis added):

Here's an incomplete first draft of a description of the Crikey-vs-Blair stuff. One problem: the 31Mar2010 SMH gossip column contains multiple errors of fact. Will explain more on talk soonish.

I was hoping "soonish" would be tonight, but a family medical emergency has prevented that.

I don't really have time for this, so I'll just note that the SMH gossip blog (among other things) wrongly (1) says that the Crikey bloggers saw the IP addresses of commenters on Blair's blog and (2) implicitly describes a full-on attack on Blair's career as "lampooning". So if we use that link as a ref, we'll need some caveats. Maybe we can just use the 1Apr2011 gossip blog post? I haven't looked into it yet.

N907, your chances of looking like someone who is here to build an encyclopedia would be better if you would stop removing well-sourced statements from the article.

BTW, I am not a blogger, just someone who has twice failed to get a blog going. Cheers, CWC 12:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This account maybe a WP:SPA but I am not a single-purpose contributor. I have created this account specifically to contribute to this article because I will be identified if I use my mainstream account, and for personal reasons I prefer to edit this article anonymously. I am not affiliated with Crikey in any way; I do not contribute or even subscribe to Crikey. I do not wish to harm Tim Blair's reputation, only to ensure this article contains a balanced and relevant range of information.

The SMH columns serve as references for two reasons: they verify that Blair initiated legal action, and mention his previous statement about "journalists sueing journalists". You have not yet explained (with verification or third-party sources) how or why these columns contain "major errors of fact". All you have done to this point is take issue with how they describe Crikey's erroneous claim about Blair 'sockpuppeting'.

You keep re-inserting the claim that Blair is one of "few conservatives" prominent in the Australian media. This is pure WP:SYNTH and completely POV. From what I can tell, Blair is attacked for his methodology as much as his politics.

Thank you for explaining that you are not a blogger. Nonetheless you are a semi-regular commenter on Blair's own blog, which must surely call your credentials for objectivity into question. Cheers.Niceperson907 (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yet again I return to this page to find CWC meddling with content by removing referenced information that provides balance about the subject, while making the ridiculous claim that he is 'removing POV'. The content which has stood since May was agreed on by all then, including third parties. New additions welcome but current information and sources should stand. Niceperson907 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither the passing of time, nor dishonest claims of consensus, nor statements by people who don't understand the SMH/DT relationship, make violations of WP:BLP and WP:POV into acceptable edits. I plan to expand our coverage of Tim Blair vs Crikey (and Jonathan Green), because it exemplifies why so many Australian lefties are deranged about Blair -- notably, some gossip bloggers and a dishonest hatefilled source they relied upon. For various reasons (mainly my brother's recent death) I cannot spare much time for this, so I do not expect to finish this year. CWC 00:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The passing of time has nothing to do with it, except that you are now back here trying the same sanitisation that you were attempting back in May. The matter of SMH references was resolved because third-party opinions suggested they were reliable sources. So far, only you claim that they are not. And you can't bark and harp about POV in one breath, then claim that you are on a campaign about "deranged lefties" and "gossip bloggers". I will keep un-doing your attempts to unbalance this article in Blair's favour by removing information and mainstream media references. Niceperson907 (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Marital status

In this edit, Niceperson907 added an unsourced sentence about Blair being married. Later edits added sources, but neither source demonstrated that Blair is married, let alone to whom. Per the privacy rules in WP:BLP, we must not mention Blair's marital status without a first-class source. As far as I knowGoogle tells me, no such source exists. Cheers, CWC 09:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Blair's Law" and Crikey journalists

CWC, your continual editing of this article to suggest that an alliance between far-left, far-right and radical Islam exists as fact is WP:SYNTH and clearly POV. It is perfectly fine to say that Blair and his followers subscribe to this theory. It is not fine to suggest that a political theory like this is established fact. I have used the words "perceived" and "supposed" to make this distinction - and you keep removing them. Either stop it, or seek a third party arbitration. Secondly, inserting the line regarding the Crikey respondents not being journalists is churlish and also POV. It can be argued that anyone undertaking paid writing for a media outlet is engaging in journalism. Also, Blair took legal action against Crikey itself, which is run by journalists. Your insertion is purely designed to justify Blair's actions, given his previous statements about the gracelessness of journalists sueing journalists. Wikipedia is not a platform for you to engage on PR on the subject's behalf. Lastly, you can stop with the SPA routine. I have another account with which I edit regularly and the edit history would probably identify me; I use this account to edit this article because I don't fancy being the subject of an acerbic post on Blair's blog. Niceperson907 (talk) 10:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tim Blair/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 images and infobox; otherwise a good start. 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 12:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

November 2018

Oshwah has recently deleted much of the article's contents. Please be aware that those edits are basically required by Wikipedia's rules, especially WP:RS and WP:BLP. The core problem is that most of the hyperlinks in the citations are now dead.

(We've recently had a low-key argument about how much to say about the complaint about 'trans-phobia' to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. I'm on the side of those who wanted to keep that subsection shorter and more neutral. Oshwah has gone further, and deleted it completely.)

Some of the dead links could be rescued. For instance, http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/12/idiots-of-feather.html is now at http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2006/12/idiots-of-feather_5546.html (but might not be adequate as a citation). However, all the links to posts at timblair.net are now broken, and hence statements citing one of those links are no longer valid in Wikipedia articles.

Well, at least the shortened article is easier to read! Cheers, CWC 04:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Transgender Controversy

September 2018

User CWC recently rm'd new section covering NSWCAT's consideration of a complaint of transgender vilification concerning an article published by Blair.

Reviewed this edit. It's highly relevant. It complies with Wiki's BLP (NPOV, V, NOR) policies. Australian Courts and Tribunal's are finders of fact and, as such, meet requirements for reliable published sources in BLP. Re-instated this edit, however, supplemented with further coverage of the issue in other tertiary sources. Also added copy of original article as published. Checked that material does not include contents of proceedings or transcripts.

Also made subsequent amendment to remove the word "although", because this may amount to a synthesized implication.

Will update when Press Council hands down ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandy Sydney (talk • contribs) 02:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

December 3, 2018

Hi Chris. I can see you take a strong interest in editing articles about conservative bloggers. You have persistently deleted my edits on the Tim Blair article but declined to talk about your reasons. I have opened a talk here, and would prefer you engage with me in conversation before wholesale deleting my edits again.

My article edit contains primary sources and links to publicly accessible court rulings this issue. If you review the judgement, the Court made (a) numerous findings of fact, and (b) a determination. If you prefer, we can adopt secondary sources instead from several law journals discussing the case, but the direct link to the Court's findings is stronger as a primary source, and the law journals will not be accessible to readers unless they have access to a law library. I have not included transcripts of Blair's testimony, evidence briefs, or court documents in my materials, which would breach BLP:PRIMARY.

The SBS and Crikey quotations are secondary sources within Wiki's rules. I have been careful with NPOV, language, focus and tone when using those sources. I cannot find any other reputable sources discussing the case, but would welcome further opinions or viewpoints from other eminent analysts if you have some to contribute.

I am unable to agree with your assessment that my edits should be removed because you view the matter as a "minor kerfuffle" - whatever that may mean to you. Mr Blair's is one of only five professional Australian journalists whose work has been accepted for determination by a Court against hate speech laws. Mr Blair is a professional and prominent journalist and a common law Court of Australia accepted a case for consideration and made findings of fact and law about his writing which are significant.

I am also unable to agree with your assessment that the edits should be removed because you believe Mr Blair is a humourist in the "ha ha, only serious" kind of vein. That claim carries no objective meaning, is a matter of opinion, not fact, and carries no probative value on whether my edits are accurate/inaccurate, or whether they fall within Wiki's rules.

I note your history of edits being protective of conservative bloggers. I'd like to hear your reasons for wholesale deletion. I also note you've used rightwingnews.com as a primary source in this article. I'd also welcome opinions from other third parties who are dispassionate.

This is the second talk I have initiated on this page on this issue without response. Please respond to my talk before deleting my edits in their entirety again. [Pandy]

December 17, 2018

If your edits violate Wikipedia's rules, as they all have so far, I will remove them in a flash; in fact, every Wikipedian is required to do that. We have these rules here because we do not want our articles about living people to be turned into compilations of hostile spin by the many, many people (mostly WP:SPAs) out there who obsessively hate one or more people who are mentioned in Wikipedia. And lots of SPAs show up here trying to turn this article into a hit piece. I wonder if "DLH" has ever heard of Wikipedia?

You are very keen to cover in enormous detail the fact that Mr Blair once wrote something unkind about a since-convicted would-be axe-murderer and also the fact that a tribunal dismissed a complaint about that. If the tribunal found that Blair (who, BTW, has supported at least one transgender person in the past) did not foment hatred of transgender people (by snarking about someone who attempted to murder multiple people with an axe), why should these failed allegations be mentioned in any halfway-decent encyclopedia article?

That last question is not rhetorical. Anyone wanting to keep details of this incident in the article will need to make a good argument for doing so in terms of Wikipedia's rules.

BTW, I've requested a cite for the claim that someone has complained to the APC about the post. Do you have one? (If not, how do you know about it? A URL that does not require a login would be ideal here.) I see that the APC does not automatically accept "Secondary Complaints". How would we know if they rejected this one?

People who want to criticize Blair can always start a free blog, where they need only worry about defamation laws. Wikipedia is much stricter.

CWC 07:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

And in trying to see if Ms Amati has been sentenced, I learn that the complaint "to News and the Press Council that Blair had vilified transgender people [...] went nowhere". So I've removed that from the article and struck out the related questions above.

BTW, I just read a good article. Dreadlocks FTW!

Cheers, CWC 07:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

December 18, 2018

Hi Chris. This seems to be circular discussion. I make a number of points in response to your comments:

1. I understand Wiki's editing policies and the additional obligations around living subjects. I also understand the underlying ethical reasons. I do not agree that my edits violate those rules. I welcome your input into which rules you specifically believe these edits are in violation of, because I have been quite careful with my treatment of the material. My edits are factually accurate, well cited, checked for tone and bias, analysed with third party language tools to try and moderate bias, and checked against the BLP rules.

2. The Tribunal made no findings about "fomenting hatred", as you put it (nor is it compelled to). There are no civil or criminal law provisions concerning fomentation of hatred. The civil laws around vilification expand much more broadly than 'hatred'. The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact in relation to Blair's article, and a number of findings at law. Those findings are matters of public interest to any person looking to learn about Tim Blair's professional history and significant milestones in that professional history.

2. Whether or not Blair has supported (whatever that may mean) a transgender person in the past has no material bearing on the media ethics of this, or any other, blog post. It has no bearing on whether there is a public interest in this event which is an important milestone of the subject's professional history. I have no interest in who Blair does or does not support or why. My concern is media ethics and the availability of high quality, accurate information about journalism and journalists.

3. The fact that a person was convicted of a violent act does not justify or legitimize unethical forms of media reporting, if that is what you are suggesting from your repeated reference to 'axe attack' and 'attempted murder'. Even criminals are imbued with basic human rights relating to dignity and privacy. Prejudical statements motivated by race, religion, sexual orientation or gender do not become ethically acceptable in terms of media ethics merely because the target has been convicted of a horrible crime. Similarly, gratuitous emphasis and derogatory slurs do not cease to be unethical in media reporting merely because the target is suspected of a crime.

4. I telephoned the Australian Press Council today to ask about its handling of this case, as well as several others. It reports having numerous complaints in respect of this article. It expects to hand down a ruling shortly. But in any case, I accept your point here and I'm happy to edit out references to the Press Council until those complaints are fully disposed of and the Council publishes a full finding in relation to Tim Blair and the impugned material. I will add information back in after the APC hands down its ruling.

5. Notwithstanding your incorrect use of legal terms of art, your recent edits also mischaracterises this event. For example, you've suggested that Blair was accused of "publishing material that vilified..." That's not the case, and this inaccuracy risks defamation. You've also said "He successfully defended that complaint." That's also a misrepresentation. I suggest you get some advice from a lawyer or jurist if you are unsure about what you're writing, or if, indeed, you do not properly understand media ethics or the law. I've not modified your other edits, but I also suggest that there is some poor syntax around the statement that Blair "defended" an APC complaint in relation to another article he published. I also have not modified your edit about the racism AHRC complaint, because I am not familiar with the case, but I would suggest it may be a misrepresentation to say that he 'successfully defended' the complaint. As I understand it, the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant before it ever went to Court. That's very different to a 'successful defence'.

6. This event is not "insignificant" as you have claimed in previous edits. Australian Courts have considered less than a handful of cases of vilification involving material written by professional journalists. This is a rare event for any journalist to be involved in. It is a significant event in the professional life of the person who is the subject of the article.

7. I'm not interested in "criticizing Blair", as you put it. I'm interested in ensuring that people who are researching his background are able to get accurate, high-quality information about his professional history. The material is not "hostile spin". They are impartial findings by a NSW Court of Law. They have been carefully checked for tone and bias.

8. You have represented my interested in being a "hit piece" about someone who "wrote something unkind..." My edits are not a hit piece, nor do they make any claims about whether Blair is "kind" or "unkind". They are objective findings of fact and law, determined by a Court. Those facts are a significant milestone in the professional life of the subject. They are presented impartially and without bias. If you have objections in terms of violations of Wiki rules, you'll need to be specific please.

I have reverted most of your edits.

18-Dec-2018, Pandy

---

I started writing a long reply to this, but most of my points are irrelevant now this article is under discretionary sanctions. I will say only that I disagree with most of Pandy's statements here. Cheers, CWC 09:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations

I'm going to collect some links which might be useful as citations in the article. CWC 06:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's an astonishingly-perfunctory admission of falsehood and major ethical violation by TB's long-time-haters at MediaWatch: https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/sorry-tim/9980832 CWC 06:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Not Racist, Not Misogynist Tim Blair blog, 15-Nov-2016. CWC 07:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

"Frightbats"

1. The original poll, Blair blog, 17-Jun-2014
2. Press Council rejects complaints, Blair blog, 25-Oct-2014
3. Blair discusses the "frightbat" furore in Quadrant, September 2017.
4. No frightbat poll for 2018, Blair blog, 5-Jan-2019

CWC 01:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Imposition of discretionary sanctions

A review of this article and its history has demonstrated extensive and persistent WP:BLP violations that have gone unresolved through normal editorial processes. Additionally, it seems that a substantial number of edits to the article fail to comply with WP:NPOV. Accordingly, I am imposing the following page restrictions pursuant to Arbitration Committee-authorized discretionary sanctions:

• Editors are prohibited from adding any information concerning any controversy involving Mr. Blair (including those currently or previously listed in the "Complaints" section of this article, as well as the current "Politics" section) that is not directly supported by a reliable, secondary, inline source in accordance with WP:BLP/WP:BLPSOURCES.
• The use of primary sources (such as court documents, articles authored by Mr. Blair, or published by the Daily Telegraph) is prohibited unless discussion on this page yields a clear consensus that the use of such sources complies with WP:BLPPRIMARY.
• Modified 1RR/72 hours/enforced BRD: If an edit (other than to enforce the above) is challenged by reversion, it must not be reinstated by its original author until the original author discusses the edit in good faith on this talk page and waits 72 hours from the original edit.

If there is any question as to whether an edit would violate these restrictions, discuss the issue or seek the advice of an uninvolved administrator before making the edit. If this notice is unclear, please contact me or an uninvolved administrator before making any edits to the article. Violations of these sanctions or other Wikipedia policies, guidelines, or editorial norms may lead to immediate blocks. Editors should see WP:DR for further steps in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process if disputes continue. Any uninvolved administrator may modify or vacate these restrictions at their discretion.

Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What next?

(For newer editors, "BRD" means roughly "edit Bodly, Revert, Discuss". Please read that essay.)

WP:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions are not to be taken lightly. Basically, future changes to the article will require wp:consensus. (As usual, you'll need to read the policy at that link to find out what that word means at Wikipedia.) For instance, I just made this edit. I hope no-one objects to it, but it really should have a supporting citation. (I had a quick look but did not find one.) You could challenge that edit, or any other edit, by wp:reverting it.

Right now, the article is not particularly informative. Making it better will require finding sources, which takes hours if not days. (Topic we might add back in: cancer, Collingwood, Werribee, "Frightbats".) I have already spent more time on this article than I want, so I won't be doing that work for the foreseeable future. Unless someone else steps in (he said hopefully), I guess I'll have be more eventualist about things.

Happy holidays, everyone! CWC 09:06, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"Blair's Law" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blair's Law. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Blair's Law until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)