Jump to content

Talk:Australian Christian Lobby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishonen (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 8 November 2012 (terminology dispute: It doesn't make any difference that Andrews used the words.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Repeated Change of Content in Criticism (& Parody) Section

The following edits have removed (parts of) the Criticism & Parody Section, then other edits have restored them:

  1. 3 Aug 2010: [1] by User:Sam56mas, reverted by User:HiLo48 in [2]
  2. 9 Aug 2010: [3] by User:Sam56mas, reverted by User:HiLo48 in [4]
  3. 10/11 Aug 2010: [5] by User:Sam56mas on 10th, reverted by User:Twilsonb in [6] on 11th, warned (vandalism) at User talk:Sam56mas#Removing Controversy Section from Australian Christian Lobby
  4. 12/14 Aug 2010: [7] by User:110.33.72.50 on 12th, reverted by User:Twilsonb in [8] on 14th, reminded (edit summaries) at User talk:110.33.72.50#Please Leave a Summary for your Edits
  5. Further edits from 17 Aug 2010 to 20 Aug 2010 by User:Muzzamo and User:Sam56mas

Two key questions need consensus:

Please feel free to discuss below. twilsonb (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in The Australian seems to be well summarised in the first paragraph. As for http://the-acl.info/, it seems to be a (legitimate!) parody site, and if anything the sentence needs expanding. I've put the external the-acl.info link into a reference instead. twilsonb (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the "parody" site notable? What references are there for it? It seems to be to be just some dude's website. Rebecca (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rebecca, the parody site is not notable and i think should go. Plenty of politicians have parody twitter accounts which don't get individually mentioned on their pages (with very few exceptions when they reach wide media coverage). As for the criticism, i think it is rather inaccurate and should be deleted. The paragraph makes claims about ACL recieving high level of influence across the board, but only provides a reference (media report) talking about one issue. Then again i'm not even a fan of the reference as from what i have seen the standard procedure in poltics when a policy is axed or delayed is to give a heads up to major stakeholders promoting a policy. So until a better source can be found proving the so called criticism, i think the section should go. Exodus87 (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not big on having a "criticism" section in any article on neutrality grounds, but I think the article definitely warrants the negative side of the equation being mentioned, considering that it's not short of sources. Rebecca (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm happy to leave the section, though i would like to see more than one source backing up the criticism of "high level of influence in Government compared to other groups" rather than the current one that talks about high level of influence on one government policy (internet filtering). As it's written now it makes it appear the criticism is across the board and ACL have high level of influence in multiple policy areas. If that is the criticism, then more sources need to be included. Perhaps for now it should read along the lines of 'as a vocal supporter of the filtering policy, the ACL has been criticised as having a high level of influence in government compared to other groups'. But as for the parody site, i vote it goes. Exodus87 (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war is getting no where so i have edited the article to include the criticism under the heading "Internet Censorship in Australia". That is afterall what the criticism was about ("has been disappointed at the disproportionate influence the Australian Christian Lobby has had on the filtering policy"). One criticism on one policy doesn't warrant a whole criticism section. In it's current state, i think the edits by Sam56mas can stay. Exodus87 (talk) 09:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting this out, Exodus87. Merging into the internet filtering section allows expansion if any further refs turn up. twilsonb (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I agree with Rebecca now I've thought about it - a single, unknown parody site isn't particularly encyclopedic. twilsonb (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated Reverts in Internet Censorship & Gay Rights

Sam56mas (talk · contribs) and HiLo48 (talk · contribs), you both came close to breaking the three-revert rule from 14 to 16 March 2011 in the Internet Censorship & Gay Rights sections. Sam56mas reverted 3 times within 34 hours 47 minutes (and made the first two edits), and HiLo48 reverted 3 times within 45 hours 56 minutes. Last time, in August 2010, you both made contributions when there was a similar edit war on this page, affecting the Internet Censorship topic. (For the record, I made 2 contributions in August 2010, too.)

List of Warring Edits

class="wikitable "

If you can't sort it out, you might both have to leave the ACL page alone - but that would be a shame as you've both made multiple contributions that have improved the article. HiLo48 has tried to start a discussion at User talk:Sam56mas#Marriage and in their edit comments - now that you've both had a few weeks to cool down, why not talk about it? twilsonb (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're mainly arguing over reliable sources and phrasing of the paragraphs. Can you each list the sources you would like in the article, and the reasons why? twilsonb (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewpoint

Hey guys, I am the ACT director of the ACL and so don't want to be involved in posting. If someone was willing though I think it is appropriate to have some information about the ACL Public Policy magazine which has been running a range of topics over several years now and is given to every politician in Australia. The website is www.viewpointmagazine.com.au for some info and back issues. ACL also partners with a group called Compass Australia (which when first set up was under ACL's board, but is now a seperate organisation with a different board) which is a youth leadership course www.compass.org.au.

Cheers, Nick Jensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padre Nick (talkcontribs) 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activities?

Is it really necessary to list all the ACL's 'recent activities' in such a drawn out manner? The ACL's actual policies are not even included, so I for one don't find this information useful at all. I.e "Climate change" is listed as a recent activity but their stance on it is not. Everyone has a stance on climate change, and naturally the ACL is no exception. I understand their stance is no doubt available on their website, I just don't see a point in having a bullet-point list of everything the group has formed an opinion on taking up such a large section of the article. Freikorp (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed due to no objections. I maintain this information was not useful to anyone regardless of their opinion of the ACL. Freikorp (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heading changes

I have reverted two heading changes which changed the text to media buzzwords rather than a factual statement of what the policies pursued are:

  • Censorship -> Protecting Children
    • The internet firewall would potentially stop more than just children accessing this content. It's censorship pure and simple.
  • Lobbying against gay rights -> Protecting traditional marriage
    • This text is POV, frankly there's no evidence to suggest that gay marriage has any effect on "traditional marriage". Let's be descriptive about what the group actually does (i.e. lobby against gay rights).

I've left the other edits by Sam56mas as I'm sure they're perfectly reasonable and valid. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of changes to article

Sam56mas, Without wanting to get into an edit war over this, I disagree with your proposed edits to the article:

  1. The primary sources tag refers to the whole article, not to just the header. Have a look at the references - the ACL's own websites are all over the reference list 11 of the 32 sources are from these sites. I think the tag is warranted. This is without looking at the non-reliable sources there (what the heck is Kotaku??)
  2. Wikipedia tries to strike a neutral tone, you're adding your own point of view in here by wanting to title the heading "Vitriolic" and saying that Mr. Wallace "has copped more than his fair share of abuse". Is there a fair share of abuse? How much is too much?
  3. My original text for the last sentence "The Australian Christian Lobby has expressed concern at the abuse of a staff member from some activists, which they claim following Adshel’s decision to remove advertisements from Brisbane bus shelters." includes the word "claims" because the only reference offered is (again) ACL's own website. The text you have inserted doesn't even include reference to the background for this situation.

Hopefully you're willing to discuss my concerns. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeadlyAssassin I agree with you on all your points. Saying Mr. Wallace "has copped more than his fair share of abuse" is so POV I am removing it immediately. I will wait for a reply from Sam56mas before taking further action. Freikorp (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Kotaku is a video-game website. They meet the notability guidelines to have a page on wikipedia, and their references are only there regarding video-games, something they are experts on. It is perfectly permissible to use them as a reference in this manner. Freikorp (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for clearning that up for me Freikorp. I've gone ahead and reinstated the wording since there's been no discussion about it. I have swapped the word "Cyberbullying" for abuse and criticism in the hope this will satisfy Sam56mas' concerns. --Deadly∀ssassin 03:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually relocated the cyberbullying sentence to the adshel advertisement section, as the complaints were a direct response to this campaign which already has its own section. They also occurred after the ads were removed but before they were re-instated, so they now fit in the timeline properly, as opposed to being out of place on their own. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I agree that's the right move. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I'm going to submit this article for peer review. There are only a couple people heavily editing it, those obviously opposed to the the ACL (such as myself) and those obviously strongly for it. In the interest of being impartial I think we should get some more opinions. It also deeply bothers me that whilst the majority of references criticising the ACL come from independent parties (ABC, Herald sun, etc...) the majority of references in favour of the ACL come directly from the ACL. It does not surprise me that the ACL can't seem to find much support outside their own websites, considering they actively and aggressively campaign against what the majority of people want, but I fear an edit war if I choose to remove their references myself. Freikorp (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I suppose I'm not exactly an uninterested observer any more. I had never heard of ACL prior to running across the article last week, and for what it's worth it does come across as an unpleasant organisation. That's probably partly a factor of the fact that as you say Freikorp, the anti- side of the argument is well sourced with independent reliable references, possibly a factor that I don't agree with their policies as stated in the article. Unfortunately sam56 doesn't appear to be paying any attention to attempts to discuss the issues with the article, and so any advice that could be given to him is likely to continue to be ignored. Good call on asking for a thorough peer review though, I would be interested in seeing what other experienced editors think of the article. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam56mas has previously been blocked from editing for "edit warring, continually removing content in order to suppress recording of criticism." It is obvious he has no desire to work with others. I encourage all editors of this page to closely read Sam56mas's references; I have just checked several myself and they do not back up the claims he has made in the article. Freikorp (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam56mas comments

If, within my uploaded entries, there are confirmed content errors, or if there are confirmed Wikipedia formatting-convention errors - let me know, and I will immediately correct them. Otherwise the entries speak for themselves. Sam56mas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam56mas (talkcontribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not your website. In addition to being aware of content errors and formatting, editors also need to be careful to cite facts with reliable sources, and ensure that the article is neutral in tone. It's also expected that you will discuss with other editors when there are content disputes to find consensus wording. Can I ask, do you plan to discuss any of the concerns that litter this talk page? --Deadly∀ssassin 11:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________

Deadly∀ssassin

You have raised a number of issues. Let me deal with them in order:

There is no evidence to show that I treat Wikipedia as my personal website.

Nor is there evidence that I use related-sources. Count them. The only ACL related-sources are in the introduction and some verifiable submissions to government enquiries and a link to For Kid’s Sake downloadable report. There is an ACL recording of a conference speaker and three ACL videos of prominent people including the Prime Minister – hardly contestable. All the rest are non-related.

As for neutral in tone – you refer earlier to comments re “vitriolic” and "has copped more than his fair share of abuse" Which you removed. I accepted your removal. However they were not my words. Those words came from Miranda Devine - Sunday Herald Sun > With its intolerance and standover tactics, the militant arm of the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot. The vitriol and vile abuse heaped on anyone who speaks up for traditional marriage is no way to win hearts and minds. Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, has copped more than his fair share of abuse, yet he is one of the few who continues publicly to defend traditional marriage. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gays-must-curb-vile-vitriol/story-e6frfhqf-1226167514970

Again - I accepted your change and your removal of those words. Fine.

However relating to the rules you set for others - you might review > Greens MP Colleen Hartland stated "I would think their [the ACL's] hatred of gays is un-Christian."[52] Impugning hatred is a much more serious accusation than is impugning vitriolic abuse.

I know we are dealing with difficult issues and while Jim Wallace was wrong re that Anzac Day tweet - at least he apologised. Meanwhile people like Wendy Francis and others get volumes of ‘vitriolic’ abuse, you can find it – many Facebook sites such as, “Fuck Wendy Francis”. From an ABC's Q&A tweet, "Jim Wallace is a cunt" There are stacks more examples. You term that (form of abuse) politely as Cyberbullying. I let that stand. Interestingly – In the other direction, I am not aware of any apologies, for anything.

Again in the other direction - I note that silly tweet from Josh Thomas was accepted without question, and would probably still be on this Wikipedia page, had I not challenged it.

I believe your statement : Lobbying against gay rights -> Protecting traditional marriage This text is POV, frankly there's no evidence to suggest that gay marriage has any effect on "traditional marriage". Let's be descriptive about what the group actually does (i.e. lobby against gay rights). I believe that statement in itself is also POV, but again I have accepted your changes.

Please clarify - Where are the references which, “do not back up the claims he has made in the article”? As for “the concerns that litter this talk page” I believe they have been dealt with - I have accepted all your recommendations. If not, please show me where correction is needed and we can discuss.

Sam56mas (talk) 11:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS The intention of the third para, revision > Nor is there evidence that I excessively use related-sources.

Sam56mas (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer a couple of these questions. It's nice to see you are actually willing to talk to the other editors now rather than just doing your own thing and ignoring us.
  • Firstly, you simply stated "Jim Wallace has copped more than his fair share of abuse", as if this an undisputed fact, as opposed to simply one persons opinion. If you had of worded it something along the lines of 'Miranda Devine from the Herald Sun states Wallace has copped more than his fair share of abuse when it comes to defending traditional marriage", that may have been a different story. Stating what a notable person thinks about something is always acceptable, and accordingly stating "Greens MP Colleen Hartland stated "I would think their [the ACL's] hatred of gays is un-Christian" is perfectly permissible within wikipedia's guidelines.
  • Secondly statements attributed to people should not be removed just because someone thinks they are "silly". The only reason I didn't revert your removal of the Josh Thomas tweet is because there is plenty of criticism there already and the section was probably getting too long anyway.
  • Regarding statements that do not back up their claims. You stated "While ACL strongly supports traditional marriage, it supported the repeal of the 84 areas of legislation which discriminated against homosexuals" then added a reference that did mention the 84 areas, but didn't say anything about the ACL supporting them. You also talked about the ACL's involvement in the Compass and "Lachlan Macquarie Internship" programs then simply linked to the home pages that mentioned nothing about involvement with the ACL. As I stated, you need media coverage connecting the two subjects - you can't just say whatever you like about them then give a link to their homepage - I would consider that misleading and also blatant advertising. You seemed to have addressed this concern so it is no longer an issue. There were several things like this that I accept may not have been a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead but simply you being unaware of wikipedia's guidelines. I would of sent you some advice on your talk page, but I got the impression from your lack of activity on this talk page that you would have just ignored it. Freikorp (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings - proposal

This article with its amount of subheadings is starting to look absolutely ridiculous; if Sam56mas keeps this up soon we may have to split this article and create a separate 'ACL policies' article. Does someone know if wiki has a policy on how many subheadings an article may have? In any case a lot of of what is in the 'Range of ACL issues' section should be removed as per WP:Not news. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a a comprehensive list of everything an organisation has ever done; can you imagine how long the Australian Labor Party article would be if they listed every policy they had ever had? In order to meet wikipedia's guidelines I think this article should simply have a 'policy' section where certain things from the 'Range of ACL issues' are summarised into a few paragraphs. Does anyone else feel the same way and have any suggestions for restructuring the article? Freikorp (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding

Freikorp, said (7 June 2011), "I just don't see a point in having a bullet-point list", "The ACL's actual policies are not even included " so I "Removed" the list. The Australian Greens have listed their 'Recent policy positions' as a 27 bullet-point list. Now with a selection of ACL's current policies included, you want them removed. There are hundreds of examples of multiple subheadings in Wikipedia. Just search under "list".
Freikorp, in discussing issues, I respectfully suggest that your claims are not enhanced by using hyperbole > "absolutely ridiculous", exaggerations > "a comprehensive list of everything an organisation has ever done" or irrelevant examples > "can you imagine how long the Australian Labor Party article would be if they listed every policy they had ever had?"
It is recommended that the subheadings remain.
Freikorp, you have said (6 November 2011) in regards to references to affiliated sources, "You seemed to have addressed this concern so it is no longer an issue". The Dialog box above the article says, "This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject". Unless that statement can be justified, it is recommended that Dialog box be now removed.
Sam56mas (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the point in having a bullet point that did not explain the ACL's position and also did not have any independent references, the Australian Greens bullet point list has both (albeit not as many references as I would like to see). Having such a bullet point list is fine. Having a unreferenced and unclear bullet point list and having 17 different sub-sections for policies are both totally inappropriate. Yet again your previous lack of being willing to discuss this article on the talk page has shot yourself in the foot; if you had of mentioned my comments were the reason you were doing this we could have worked on this together, I would have actually helped you find a compromise.
You do not own wikipedia, it is not recommended that the subheadings remain, YOU recommend that the subheadings remain. I disagree and am trying to work with other editors to find a solution. Unless you can provide an actual reason why they should remain I will be converting the 'Range of ACL issues' to look similar to the 'Recent policy positions' on the Greens page, as this takes up less space and does not violate WP:Not news.
I suggest you do not twist my words. I THINK it looks "absolutely ridiculous", my opinion, that is all, I do think it looks absolutely ridiculous. I said "Wikipedia is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of everything an organisation has ever done", I didn't say that it what the article is now, but it certainly looks like that is what you are trying to accomplish. Since you rarely talk about your edits we can only guess as to where you are going next.
I did not add the 'primary sources' tag; I don't see why it shouldn't be removed, but other editors may disagree. Freikorp (talk) 01:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to Brianboulton's comments below - he also thinks the 'Range of ACL issues' section in inappropriate. Freikorp (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some neutral observations

I promised I would make a few comments about this article, having earlier taken it out of the WP peer review process as inappropriate. There is nothing to stop a religious organisation or group having a Wikipedia article, provided that it is written in neutral language and takes the form of an encyclopedia entry rather than promotional material. I have to say that as an example of an encyclopedia article, this one is in pretty poor shape as it stands. Basic, routine information that you would expect to find in any aricle about an active organisation is simply not there. For example:-

  • How is this organisation financed, and what is its annual income?
  • Is it a registered charity - or what is its legal status as a body if not a charity? Does it file accounts?
  • How many active supporters does it have, or claim to have, and how are they distributed over the states?
  • Does it have a paid headquarters staff? If so, how many?
  • Does it issue publications - journals, newsletters etc? If so, give details
  • What are the attitudes of the mainstream churches to the organisation, as expressed by church leaders?
  • Does the organisation have links to other organisations, in Australia or overseas? If so, what are these links?

I would expect to see all this information in a properly researched article on an organisation that was thought notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. A few further thoughts:

  • The lead should confine itself to summary factual information about the ACL, and give a brief, clear statement of what the ACL claims to stand for. The present statement that it "does not seek to be the peak political voice for the church" is inadequate; we need to get an idea of what it is, rather than what it is not.
  • In the Origins section, the statement that "according to research carried out by the Christian Research Association, the Coalition was largely supported by Pentecostals" needs a citation, and "Pentacostal" requires a wikilink
  • The section headed "Range of ACL issues" is problematic. First, these are general social and political issues; they are not "ACL issues", so the section needs a more appropriate title. It needs to be shortened to a series of brief summaries, without anecdotal support, of what the ACL's standpoint is on the main issues listed. Every statement should be in factual, neutral language; thus, on Abortion, avoid referring to the "sanctity of life", and use words such as "The ACL is opposed to abortion (listing exceptions if any) and works for the repeal of legislation that sanctions abortion on demand" - or some such wording. Confine this section to major issues on which ACL has expressed a specific policy.

I don't have further time to spend on this article, but these points should give you a few ideas on how the article should be rebuilt. Remember that NPOV is the key to any encyclopedia article. Once contentious information is introduced, articles like this become timewasting battlegrounds. Brianboulton (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding

Brianboulton, thank you. They are all valid comments, which will improve the quality of the article. I will progressively work through them.
  • Again, Freikorp and with great respect, Brianboulton notes that the "Range of ACL issues" is problematic and he makes it clear that the structure and content need significant improvement. I agree. Brianboulton did not say, "the 'Range of ACL issues' section in(sic) inappropriate".
  • Again, Freikorp you say, "Unless you can provide an actual reason why they should remain I will be converting the 'Range of ACL issues' to look similar to the 'Recent policy positions' on the Greens page, as this takes up less space and does not violate WP:Not news." Brianboulton did not advocate this course of action.
Sam56mas (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your petty attacks continue; I am not surprised. I didn't say Brianboulton advocated this course of action, I simply made a declaration of what I intended to do next as to generate discussion. We do not require him to 'advocate' any course of action. Inappropriate, problematic, needing significant improvement: reasonably synonymous for the purpose of my argument if you ask me, but you are free to disagree. Once again I note you have never responded to us highlighting the sheer reality that this article wouldn't have many of these problems if you simply hadn't ignored repeated requests for cooperation from other editors. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, your comments mirror the strategy Jim Wallace always uses: completely ignore valid criticism and instead try to bring the audiences attention to minor flaws in the opponents argument, clever. Freikorp (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like these new changes to the article, well done. My only main concern is the "public Christianity" part. It is backed up by one reference, which only consults Wallace for once quote, which is mentioned in its entirety in the article. Even though in reality it is a serious issue and I personally support ending the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt I don't think it could be considered a "major issue"; It's just a brief mention. I think it should be removed. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________

Freikorp, thank you. Sam56mas (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the late reply, unfortunately work has got in the way of my editing over the last week or so. What a difference to the article, it is a lot better structured and reads much more like an encyclopaedic now. Well done to you both. There are still a number of primary references, I wonder if we could deal with those. I have been bold and made the following changes, comments of course welcome:
  • I have moved all actual references to the references tag, hopefully in an attempt to make editing easier. I always find it hard to read in edit mode with the cite tags all over the place.
  • I removed a reference to the Kids sake report which referenced the ACL website, I think the age article covers what needs to be said and the ACL site is of course a primary source.
  • I removed some of the references to videos - these are primary sources, if there are independent third party sources that cover the events they could go in, however in the cases where I removed them, the statements are already covered by other references.
  • I removed the reference to the sunrise "debate". The appearance of a couple of talking heads on morning tv isn't particularly notable in my opinion.
  • I have tagged some facts that need citation.
  • I have tagged a number of other instances of primary sources and given my reasoning in the tag.
I ran out of time, but will try to make some more comments as soon as I can. --

Deadly∀ssassin 00:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I like these changes also. One thing - providing what it is summarising is referenced later in the article the opening paragraph does not require additional references for its summary. Accordingly I am removing the citation request that is has received criticism, including from other Australian Christians, as there are several references that back this up throughout the article. If you disagree I am naturally happy to discuss the matter. Freikorp (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________

Responding to Deadly∀ssassin's dot points in sequence.

  • Fine
  • Fine
  • Reference [8] & [14] - I do not think there would be a law-court anywhere in Australia which would doubt that it was Australia's Prime Minister, Julia Gillard speaking on that video. For a video of this type - a request for a non-primary source, is bit pedantic. I suggest courts would take more convincing regarding hearsay evidence from a person, "who has asked asked not to be named". Yet you accept reference [35]. Suggest your [non-primary source needed] tag / qualifications for references [2], [3], [8] and [14] be similarly removed.
  • I reinstated the reference to the sunrise "debate". Your "opinion" of a "couple of talking heads on morning tv" is far too dismissive. That discussion - with opportunities from both sides to air their views - shed much light on this complex issue.
  • Fine
  • Fine

Some current issues on which ACL lobbies - is more a accurate statement rather than Current issues on which ACL lobbies check www.acl.org.au

Responding to Freikorp - Fine we have dealt with that caveat previously, even if you feel must repeat it, three more times. Again at [38](twice) and at [54].

I must say looking at the balance of the article (beyond the introduction)

  • 38% of the article is "ACL work" - with around 17 issues listed and
  • 62% of the article is "negative towards ACL" - with around 4 issues listed (1 ACL "supporting censorship", 2 ACL "opposing gay rights", 3 ANZAC day and 4 Adshel) The Adshel advertisement issue (alone) gets 4 paras and 249 words.

ACL is also actively working to try to prevent Copts from being killed. However the single / modest sentence on that subject, backed up a The Age article as the source, was deleted as apparently not worthy to go into Wikipedia. Interestingly, within this Wikipedia article it is claimed that, ACL . . . . is strongly opposed by free-speech . . . advocates.

This entire Wikipeda page looks unbalanced.

However, I do not lose sleep over any of these (noble) corrections, as people can, and do, make up their own minds.

Sam56mas (talk) 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I can't control the amount of negative attention the ACL have received in the media, though it does not surprise me. If the ACL didn't want an 'Anzac day' controversy section on their wikipedia article maybe Jim Wallace should have thought about that before making such controversial statements. The ACL aggressively lobby against what the majority of Australians want, sometimes using deceitful tactics to do so. 60% of Australians want gay marriage and over 80% want voluntary euthanasia, an R18+ classification for video games, and not having an internet filter, yet this does not stop the ACL from attempting to enforce their minority views on all of us. Accordingly you can't expect the majority of non-primary articles about them to be positive. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopaedia, however this does not mean we should deliberately balance the article to be 50/50 in favour/opposition of the ACL by removing criticism; the article should be a reflection of how they are perceived by non-primary sources, and if a lot of this is negative, this is what should appear in the article. Besides, what is positive or negative is in the eye of the beholder; there is no doubt in my mind that there are some people who will look at the ACL's stance on gay rights and censorship in the article and completely approve of their actions.
Secondly how long a issue section should be is affected by several things, but probably none more so than the amount media attention the issue received. The adshel issue received heavy media coverage, not only initially but also as new events unfolded over the issue. The coptic Christian issue on the other hand received a mere one paragraph. I firmly stand by my decision to remove the 'public christianity' section based on my previous reasons. Now I know it was just the advice of one other editor, but I firmly agree the issue section should only contain issues that would be considered 'major'. Major does not refer to how important an issue is perceived to be, it refers to how much effort the ACL is putting into the campaign and how much media attention it is getting as a result.
Thirdly for the last time the criticism issue is not repeated. The opening paragraph is supposed to summarise the article, and saying they have received criticism is exactly that, summarising. The article conversely is supposed to have detailed information on what the opening paragraph is summarising, and explaining the individual criticisms is exactly that. Freikorp (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sam, I'm not trying to suggest that it's not Julia speaking in the video, but because it's Julia speaking in the video then it's almost by definition a Primary Source (e.g. Julia herself talking, not someone reporting what Julia said). While Primary Sources are permitted, they should be handled with care as it's important that we avoid our own biases in Wikipedia by trying to interpret sources ourselves. That's why I tagged the sources (note that I didn't remove them). Can I suggest that a read of WP:PRIMARY may be useful for you?
Maybe your definition of "much light shed on a complex issue" is different to mine. But anyway, setting aside this. I don't understand what this says about the ACL. Just because someone from the ACL appeared on morning TV doesn't make it notable for this encyclopaedic. Taking this to it's conclusion, should we document every time Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott appear on a TV programme in their articles? It would make for a pretty long article. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statements regarding the acl having received support and criticism have been moved from the introduction to the 'aim' section. I don't think this information belongs in this section, and considering the information and references that they have support were no doubt placed there to counter the criticism part (and there is nothing wrong with doing that, don't get me wrong) and they also have a primary sources tag, I propose removing the entire sentence. There's no point in saying they have generally received criticism in one subsection (in the introduction is a different story) if all the detailed information is in another subsection, and if that is gone there is nothing to counter. I would have done this already but I don't want to start an edit war if there is a disagreement. Any objections? Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AustralianChristianLobbyLogo2011a.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AustralianChristianLobbyLogo2011a.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes/2011 Norway attacks

Sam56mas please don't insinuate that I am not taking the murder of 79 people seriously. Also our opinions are irrelevant: you think Mr Wallace's insights are deep and I think they are cheap shots, but that does not matter.

I simply don't think adding detailed information regarding potential influences on the massacre will improve the article. Right now it just has the raw facts - Mr Wallace made some comments and somebody criticised them. You can give the section undue weight by only mentioning the handful of references in Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto regarding video games, and then I can counter your argument by pointing out that his manifesto was had far more biblical and Christian references than video game ones.

I believe the only thing our edits will accomplish in the long run is making the article more complicated and long-winded than it already is. I think there is enough information there already, and that the reader can decide whether to agree with Mr Wallace or his criticiser. I'm not trying to stop you from adding the information, I was just trying to say if you add it I will add information opposing it so why don't we not waste our time on this one when our arguments are probably just going to balance each other out anyway. Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally can I propose a mutual shortening of the article? Can we remove the block quote of Jim Wallace criticising Modern Warfare 2 (and replace it with a line simply saying he criticised it and one if the reasons why), and at the same time remove the block quotes from Nathan Cambell and Jeremy Ray, thereby only saying they criticised the ACL and why, without having parts of their actual quotes?. I think both of these sections go into too much detail; I was only attempting to match your level of detail by adding the block quotes in the first place. Freikorp (talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC

You have made some fair points. Will respond. Sam56mas (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________

The Australian Christian Lobby entry in Wikipedia contains a section specifically for Controversy and criticism. That is fine. However this raises three issues - one minor and two major.

1 (minor) The Controversy and criticism section has become a repository for - some would say 'exceedingly detailed' - accusations against the ACL. Some might view some of the comments as 'petty'. All the same, this is fine.

2 (major) The area above the Controversy and criticism 'line' also contains not insignificant Controversy and Criticism. (eg considerable sections of the Issues relating to censorship and Issues relating to gay rights)

3 (major) Contrary to the position outlined in 2 above, natural justice is curtailed below the 'line'. There is almost no ACL defence permitted below the 'line'. As a case in point re the attack on Jim Wallace by a theology student - apparently no back ground or ACL defence is permitted.

For these reasons the ACL Wikipedia entry is unbalanced. To rectify this problem, all disparate controversy and criticism has been moved to the section Controversy and criticism. This provides a better categorisation of the issues. In the new arrangement no words were deleted, no words were added. Sam56mas (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about these changes one way or the other; I think we can both agree that the article has issues, and I can't think of a perfect solution. Perhaps we should get a neutral third opinion again? That worked well last time. Anyway - regarding your third issue, I strongly disagree. I have made no attempts to remove you adding that the the NSW Council of Churches supports the ACL, or that the ACL expressed concern at the cyberbullying (re: adshell). If it comes from a non-primary source, and complies with WP:OPED, I don't have any problems with you adding defences. I explained why I removed the information regarding defending Jim Wallace from the theology student attack (I'm not disallowing it, it's a suggestion), and I'm still willing to discuss the matter. Freikorp (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Lemon's allegation of hypocrisy.

Sam56mas, I believe I've now reverted you attempting to remove Geoff Lemon's comments on the grounds the issue is already covered in the "Adshel advertisements" section 3 times now. I will explain on the talk page as clearly my explanation in the edit summaries have not been adequate for you. Yes, the adshel advertisements section does mention that "None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the Australian Christian Lobby, so Adshel was made to believe that they originated from individual members of the public" however that is all it mentions, it does not mention complaints of hypocrisy regarding the ACL's criticism of others. Also just because one reference mentions what they did, does not mean another person criticising those actions should be ignored. The comment ""None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the ACL..." only mentions what the ACL did. It is simply a fact. Whilst it is easy for me at least to criticise what they did, it is not directly criticism in itself as it is not opinionated. I will consider merging Lemon's comments with the "adshel advertisements" section so it does not appear that the issue is being repeated. Freikorp (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues relating to family

The following text currently appears in the article:

"Katrina Fox, a journalist, who "has written extensively for the gay and lesbian media",[19] has stated it makes more sense to an expand the "definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models" than to just legalise gay marriage.[20] Expansions currently being advocated in Australia include polygamy[21] and polyamory.[22] During a Senate Inquiry, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked, "Should (there) be equity and equality in relationships regardless of, for example, the number of people participating in that relationship?" He replied, "The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people. There may be, in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step."[23]"

References 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 mention NOTHING about the ACL. Not only that, it contains an Association fallacy regarding writing "written extensively for the gay and lesbian media". This association has not been commented on by any third party, rather it has simply been added via her profile page. I am assuming these 5 references and the paragraph associated with them have been set up to provide some sort of relevance for the paragraphs final sentence and reference:

"Jim Wallace has noted that The Greens claim that "love is love" and advocate "marriage equality", but inconsistently reject polygamous love and polygamous marriage.[38]"

This last sentence is all well and good. Jim Wallace's comments are of course, relevant to the articles subject. If Katrina Fox mentioned the ACL in her article, her comments would be relevant. I might have just overlooked this if it was just one reference, (if I've done this myself in any point of the article I apologise and will of course consider removing it if you point it out to me) but five is far too much in my opinion. I don't think it's objective to pull the comments that support what you are getting at when there would of course be comments opposing it, that also do not mention the article's subject. If I didn't think anyone would object I would have just deleted the whole part in question, but I'm going to either hear any opinions on why they should stay, or give people an option to replace the part in questions themselves. Freikorp (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it another day or two to hear back from you and if I don't I'll just assume you don't oppose my suggestion and will delete those sentences. Freikorp (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Currently within ACL Wikipedia is the paragraph:
The ACL has raised the possibility that if gay marriage rights were granted, the next push will be for marriage to include polygamous relationships.[93] Gay marriage campaigners have described this statement by the ACL as a "desperate scare tactic", noting that polygamous marriage is not legal in any country that has legalised gay marriage.[94]
Evidence is presented as to the reasons for ACL's 'ploygamous' concern. You threaten to, and then unilaterally, 24 hours later, 'delete those sentences' - (the evidence). A bit too fast off the mark, and bit too authoritarian.
I have reinstatated the section Freikorp removed - this time to satisfy his concern, linked the Kirby-statement directly to Jim Wallace and to ACL. I have removed Katrina Fox's CV, but otherwise recommend leave all content as is.

Sam56mas (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like reading lies. It was not 24 hours later, it was 40 hours after my second message, and over 60 hours after my first message. I couldn't help but notice you made an edit to the article after I made my first comment, and I think it is reasonable to believe this indicates you would have noticed my comment, and chose not to reply at that time. It's not the first time you haven't replied to my comments, so I didn't know if you were going to reply or not this time. Nevertheless instead of just taking action I thought I'd give you even more notice. Considering your previous actions and inactions I don't think I acted fast or in an authoritarian manner. Freikorp (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain Katrina Fox's comments do not belong here, if you still insist they must remain here or do not respond I will take this issue to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Freikorp (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to third opinion: This is the full current text I am disputing, but it is the first sentence I am most concerned about. "Katrina Fox, a journalist, has stated it makes more sense to an expand the "definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models" than to just legalise gay marriage.[29] Expansions currently being advocated in Australia include polygamy[30] and polyamory.[31]" Freikorp (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here from third opinion. First of all, Freikorp, it is inappropriate to note that you are going to 3O as the intent is for the request to appear impartial. That said, I agree that material about Fox should be removed as there is no clear connection to ACL noted. I am not so certain about the second part because it appears Jim Wallace is referring to at least one of those incidents. Specifically, the "Confessions of a polygamist" article seems to be the polygamous relationship featured in The Punch and SBS that Wallace cites. However, the way the source is currently cited is inappropriate. I would suggest wording it in a way that makes it clear this story was being cited by Wallace as pointing to the alleged dangers of legalizing gay marriage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Sorry about the declaration of intent, I was unaware of that. Will comply with your suggestions. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

I'm concerned this article is becoming overly detailed (turning into a comprehensive account of everything the ACL and ACL members have ever done). I am also interested to hear if anyone thinks it is violation of WP:PROMOTION. Freikorp (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"a comprehensive account of everything the ACL and ACL members have ever done" Suggest your wording is an exaggeration > "representing something as being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is." ACL is obviously an active organisation and does much more than is summarised here within Wikipeadia. For evidence of this activity refer http://www.acl.org.au/media/acl-in-the-media/ It also could be argued that the current ACL Wikipedia entry also contains an 'extensive account' of trivial anti-ACL, laundered, Twitter and Facebook entries.
Recommend leave all content as is.

Sam56mas (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole purpose of request for comment is to get the opinions of people who are not already involved in editing the article. I stated my concern and I'm hoping for neutral people to comment on it, not you. I already know you disagree with me, hence the request for outside help. Do you ever read wikipedia's guidelines? Freikorp (talk) 08:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentBoth the Current Issues and The Controversy and Criticism sections appear to be filled with a bit too much detail. In fact, it appears to have an over-emphasis on detail instead of an overview of the issues campaigned on. Perspective and distance is needed. Wikipedia is not a newspaper with all the details and He said, She said ad nauseum. Consider that the article might be better presented by having summaries of past campaigns, current campaigns and refer readers off site for details. Controversies section is over-long and over-detailed, and perhaps indicative of a lack of NPOV. Needs a firm precis. Whiteguru (talk) 01:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Whiteguru that both the pro- and anti-ACL sections are overly detailed, and NPOV can be regained (or attained) with more of a news style. While I don't like suggesting that an article may be over-referenced (since the reverse is so often the case), WP:PROMOTION notes: "Creating overly abundant links...is unacceptable". All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 02:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I've suspected for some time now. I have already reduced the criticism section, which I largely created, by over 3,500 characters and attempted to write it in more of a news style. I intend to shorten the rest of the article in a similar fashion shortly. Freikorp (talk) 04:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post RfC changes

Rather than start an edit-war, If anyone has a problem with any changes I've made to the article please list them here so we can reach an agreement. I've removed some references including a dead link to the classification laws, a link to the advertising standards home page that does not mention the issue it is supposed to back up, rather we are expected to search through the website ourselves, and the following link [9] which does not mention the ACL, rather it just mentions an issue they happen to have campaigned on and was accordingly being used in violation of synthesis and original research guidelines. Freikorp (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've looked at the "Issues" section and its references in detail for quite some time and I've now found (and removed) several more references that do not mention the ACL at all, and were just being used to shift the article in favour of the ACL. [10][11][12] You are allowed of course to find references in favour of the ACL but they at least have to mention the ACL. If we are allowed to simply use references that mention issues the ACL lobbies on, without mentioning the ACL themselves, I would be allowed to absolutely flood the article with criticism from gay rights/pro choice etc supporters around the world. Freikorp (talk) 07:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've combined the long winded title "Issues relating to 'freedoms' of expression: Restraint being advocated by ACL" with the censorship section. If they are encouraging an internet filter, that is censorship, purely and simply. As with everything like this criticism is in the eye of the beholder. Censorship is not a negative things per se, i.e I support censoring child porn. I just don't see a point in separating the censorship which is perceived by the media to be bad with the censorship that is perceived as being appropriate. It all belongs together. Freikorp (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the edit summary of Sam56mas here: [13]. Upon closer inspection, I think your edit is fair. Thank you for making a neutral edit to wikipedia. However I firmly believe, based on the language you use, that you are not adhering to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please bring up your concerns about the "excessively anti-ACL rhetoric (being still more than 50% of the content)" and I will listen to your concern and attempt to reach a solution. I've used some pejorative language on this talk page in the past I'll admit but mainly because I'm frustrated with you not adhering to wikipedia's guidelines. As noted above, I've recently uncovered you using multiple references to support the ACL that do not even mention the ACL, but I'm assuming good fath and instead of flat out accusing you of deliberately violating wikipedia guidelines I've considered that maybe you just didn't know about that guideline and accordingly I've stated my concern about your action and explained why I think it is wrong, giving you a chance to respond to my concerns. Considering the fact that you've previously been blocked from editing for completely removing content you do not like, not to mention you've also received warnings for edit warring and ignoring the pleas for co-operation with others, I am somewhat offended that you are complaining that over 50% of this article is "excessively anti-ACL rhetoric". If you've got something to say, please say it on the talk page. As I've previously explained (though I'm not sure if you ever saw it as as usual you did not reply) the size of a section on an article should be directly proportional to how much independent media coverage an issue received. If there is a lot of negative coverage about the ACL in the press, that should be reflected in the article. When large amounts of text get moved around, I'll admit I can overlook something, but I firmly believe I have always attempted to add criticism in a neutral manner. I have never resorted to using a reference that does not satisfy WP:Reliable sources, you have. I have never had to resort to using references that do not even mention the ACL to support my arguments, you have. Every time I have removed one of your references on the grounds it is not reliable I have taken it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to make sure it is not a reliable source first, you on the other hand have removed references you think are not reliable without consulting anyone and I have only added them back after the Reliable sources/Noticeboard has ruled that they are, in fact, reliable. Consider the fact that every single time I have brought up one of our disagreements to a neutral third party that party has ruled in my favour. Please start talking to me more so we can improve this article together. Freikorp (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected one non-Freikorp input. I will respond in due course. Sam56mas (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Managing director Jim Wallace AM

Should we have this image in the article or not? Sam56mas has been removing the picture I put up here with a weird reason: "The pasting of 'Oddee' images on Wikipedia sites speaks a thousand words about your motivation". My motivation here is that Jim Wallace is an important person in ACL. I had taken a picture of him. The article would be improved with an image of Jim Wallace, rather than being a lot of unillustrated text. (I am thinking about taking a picture of their office, however unexciting that is). [My COI declaration: I have been to a couple of ACL events, and I saw Jim Wallace in a shopping centre on Friday night. One of my friends works in the ACL office. I am not opposed to most of their point of view.] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not his best picture, and I guess that's what Sam56mas's problem is, but it is certainly not bad to the point where people are going to think negatively of the ACL because of it. Upon close inspection I got the initial impression that the picture was taken by an amateur photographer at an ACL event or formal interview with Wallace, and I'm sure the average wikipedia reader will appreciate that not everybody is an expert photographer. The article mentions Wallace 26 times, and also contains several references written by him. I think it adds to the article to know what he looks like. I recommend including the picture until a better general picture of him is uploaded, then replacing it. I also think a general picture of their office would add to the article. Freikorp (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over 3 months have passed and no-one has objected to this image being re-added. I was going to be bold and add it back myself but instead here is a friendly last request for comment before I put it back in the article where it originally was. Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the image where you say, "here is a friendly last request for comment before I put it back in the article". The image has been photoshopped - presumably to denigrate Jim Wallace by giving him that "Joker" look. Obviously another variation (illustration?) of WWP. As a friendly response - if you put the image back, I will immediately challenge its inclusion by conclusively proving that the image has been photoshopped. Sam56mas (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I wasn't expecting that claim. It's certainly interesting that you waited until now to make this accusation. The user who uploaded it, Graeme Bartlett, is an administrator on wikipedia who has received many awards for his editing. Not only that he is a Christian who states he supports the ACL. I'm sure he will be fascinated to know you have accused him of photoshopping the image. I'll let him know. Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that photshop was not used at all. Instead I used GIMP 2.6.11. The only action taken was to crop the image from the camera. At the time I only took very few photos of Jim Wallace, but many of Zed Seselja and Simon Corbell. So I could not pick a better looking one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ACL Managing Director
Jim Wallace AM
Summarising where we are at, re the Jim Wallace photo - Freikorp has said, "It's obviously not his best picture" and "impression . . taken by an amateur photographer" and "I think it adds to the article to know what he looks like" and "I recommend including the picture until a better general picture of him is uploaded, then replacing it." In view of that current proposal, I have uploaded to Wikipedia a Jim Wallace image from the ACL website http://www.acl.org.au/our-staff/ - I'm sure ACL will provide any required copyright permission. I have added it to the ACL Wikipedia site. As an interesting aside, I note that a Green politician actually specifies the type of image he wants on the Greens Wikipedia site. Refer > Talk > Peter Whish-Wilson > ELEKHHT 08:33, 15 July 2012 Sam56mas (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by what I said, this is all good and helps improve the article. As a side note I'd like to point out that we just established something in that OLO article is incorrect; the author stated that Graeme Bartlett's image of Jim Wallace was a "dodgy photoshopped" one. But never-mind. I'm curious as to how you were going to go about "conclusively proving" that the image was photoshopped when it clearly isn't, but I consider this issue resolved. Freikorp (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that new upload will have to have a suitable copyright for free use granted, but it is a much better quality one. the procedure to follow is in WP:PERMIT. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's credibility is compromised.

Contrasting Wikipedia entries on The Greens and the Australian Christian Lobby proves the bias of the site. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 114.73.114.9 (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking on the link for the author's name returns "John Miller is a happily married Christian." Is someone who makes his Christianity so much part of his public persona going to take an objective view on this? It's a blog post anyway, so unsuitable as a source for Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An OLO comment which seems to sum up the situation. The motivations of the custodians of the Green and ACL Wikipedia sites were obvious after the publication of the above article in OLO. Firstly they removed any evidence of dispute from the Greens and ACL pages. Against the spirit of the Wikipedia Guidelines, which states: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. However that removal was virtually predictable - refer to the futility of editing tags reference above. Like King Midas (sic) the Emperor and his lack of clothes, one editor decreed, despite the above, there is no dispute. They also said any opinion in OLO is not acceptable for Wikipedia, completely ignoring a prior Wikipedia determination to the contrary. Labelling the OLO article as 'laughable' represents other great intellectual insight enlisted to help resolve this problem. Another criticised someone who apparently removed some text within Wikipedia ACL. (pots and kettles come to mind) Further, the left-theologians deemed any contribution by a 'Christian' must be biased and therefore can not be accepted. While the comment noting that Wikipedia pages are updated by different authors, might represent a revelation to the statement's author, otherwise I am not sure of its relevance. In actually responding to the concerns raised, someone did fix two missing [citations needed]. While that is good he/she obviously did not read the OLO article and fixed the wrong citations.

That's it. Debate now over. Back to business-as-usual. The issue is not so much Wikipedia being corrupted. It is Wikipedia being used as propaganda. 42.241.205.134 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A comment another user made at the Australian Greens talk page which seems to sum up how pointless your comment was.
"If you suggest, or make, changes to these articles which are not politically biased and supported by references to reliable sources it's pretty likely they'll remain in the article. Whinging about supposed "custodians" of articles and wicked "left-theologians" is about the most unhelpful thing you can do. If you'd like to improve the articles, give it a go."
Freikorp (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from other Christian groups

The entire paragraph had an WP:UNDUE problem for both its positioning and content. The fifty national church leaders 'trump' many times over all the other named organisations. As a measure of the current activities of the VCC check out the http://www.vcc.org.au/ website, which has been in this form for at least the last two months.

I have placed Vic and Qld, anti ACL positions - even added their respective controversy and criticism wordings in the 'Controversy and criticism' section. If the section on 'Support from other Christian groups' / 'Support' is to be reverted back, possibly it could be expanded to include:

1 Gillard agrees to address Christian lobby http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8516287/gillard-agrees-to-address-christian-lobby even http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8780/Christian-Lobby-plans-cozy-night-with-Gillard.htm

2 The issue of gay marriage sits 12th in importance with even the supposedly "socially progressive" GetUp!'s membership.[1]

3 Had removed, but could put back: At a Senate hearing, Jim Wallace responded to questions regarding the VCC media release by saying that "a great majority, I would not claim 100 per cent, but certainly [a] great majority [of VCC members]," do support ACL's position on marriage.[2]

4 Could add the informative (not to mention positive) comments from the NSW Council of Churches re the comparative roles of the ACL and the churches. I could put statement from http://www.nswchurches.org/Resources/2CH%20Commentaries/C111218.pdf in a {{Quote . . . form now that {{quotes are apparently again permitted.

Interesting chronology on the use of Wiki {{Quotes:

1 Allowed > Revision as of 11:09, 16 August 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→‎Gay rights: new information and references)

2 Disallowed > Revision as of 14:11, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→‎Issues relating to family: in an attempt to shorten the article I previously removed the quote about the petition against the ACL, now I'm removing the quote about their statement, they are both available in the reference)

3 Disallowed > Revision as of 03:38, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→‎Anzac Day 2011: shortening as per RrC suggestion)

At the end of the day the support, or "lack of it", for ACL and particularly its position on marriage will be decided, not on the pages of Wikipedia, but in Parliament House Canberra.

Sam56mas (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing the "Support" section and relocating its information.
I thought you would say something about that new quote, I was almost going to start a conversation about it here but I didn't because quite frankly I'm still waiting for you to "respond in due course" since 21:39, June 16, 2012‎, and you didn't join in on the two conversations that followed that one, so I didn't think you'd have time to reply.
It should be noted I previously removed all the quotes in the article, including the ones opposing the ACL.
I tried to avoid putting this new quote in the article; I spent some time trying to think of a way of wording how much Brian Greig has criticised the ACL's accusations but I just couldn't sum it up in one sentence, and by the time I had actually written out a summary of Mr Grieg's criticism (he did write an entire article criticising them) it was going to be longer than the block quote anyway. Also this may not be justification on its own but take into consideration most of the quotes that have been removed were remarks that were generally either from a person who is not notable enough to have a wikipedia article (simply reported in a reliable source), or that persons criticism was simply mentioned in the article (not the only subject of the article), or both. This is an article specifically just criticising the ACL written by a former Senator, which I think should allow it to have more weight in the article. That of course is up for debate, but my point is I have no intention of putting quotes in from people who are nowhere near as notable as he is, like I used to. If you can sum up exactly how much disdain Mr Grieg has for the ACL in non-quote format I will gladly look at it and consider replacing the quote with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh BTW don't feel obligated to reply to that old discussion (I consider the issue resolved), I was just pointing out you hadn't used this talk page for a while even though you said you were going to, hence I thought you were too busy to reply. Freikorp (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard don't think the comment about Googling the F and C word etcetera are of significance, interestingly this is partially because they state the commentator "appears not to understand how the Google search facility works". Search for "Online opinion" at the noticeboard and see the comments. Accordingly that statement should not appear in the article.

I also do not think the statement in the article "After an alleged bashing, the ACL refused to participate in a debate on same-sex marriage on the grounds they fear "personal attack and vitriol" from gay activists." is accurate enough. The statement in the ACL reference reads "They made reference to the shocking and unfounded attempt to slur Michael Ferguson by ALP State MP Brenton Best, when he accused him of being “partly responsible” for the bashing of a gay man simply because he had been a member of a family values group some eight years before."

The alleged bashing does not appear a reason why the ACL pulled out of the debate, the issue seems to be the ACL are unhappy someone was accused of being "partially responsible" for bashing a gay man, not the attack itself. There is another point; the quote in the article does not mention that the person who was supposedly bashed was gay. Also the reference doesn't say who was bashed, or when they were bashed, or where they were basked so I think it is a very unreliable source for an allegation of an attack. In any case the bashing does not appear to be the only reason the ACL are pulling out of debates, even according to this reference. The ACL have been accusing gay activist of vitriol for a long time. This needs rewording. Your suggestions are welcome; I didn't have enough space to explain all of that in the edit summary. Freikorp (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this at WP:RSN and echo the view there: onlineopinion.com.au is not a suitable source for encyclopedic information. Further, the proposed text (diff) is not suitable (for one thing, its meaning is totally unclear, but even if that could be overcome, it is just ephemeral he-said, she-said stuff). Material like that is not useful until independent secondary sources have considered it significant. However, some text in the article is undue, for example there is no reason to feature a quote from Brian Greig (whose article claims "He began to get involved in gay rights activism during the 1990s"). An article about the "Australian Christian Lobby" is not a place to coatrack complaints from their opponents (it's not a place to present unadorned pro information, but it's also not a place for highlighting con arguments). Not many readers would need editorial assistance to work out whether opposing same-sex marriage is good or bad—just report the facts. Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Johnuniq. It's welcoming to see new people take an interest in this article; both the people who are in favour of the ACL and those opposed (myself included) have been playing a tit-for-tat game of adding pro and con arguments for a while and it has got out of hand at times. Personally I think it's important to see how notable people respond to the ACL's actions and comments, and that's why I adde the Brian Grieg comment, but I understand your point. Please feel free to be bold and make any changes you see fit. Freikorp (talk) 06:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to ‎42.241.143.185

Sorry if my edit summary was misleading, there just isn't enough space in those things to fully describe rationale sometimes. I put that information in there to point out that that is the only information www.onlineopinion.com has about him. He is not touted as an expert on anything, much less the topic at hand, and therefore his input is not sufficiently notable to be included.

Also, from WP:NOTRS

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.

From my understanding of the site, it is entirely based on personal opinion. Jonathanfu (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul suggestion

I have a permanent solution to our ongoing debates about what is and is not appropriate to be added to the article. People already know whether they like or loathe the ACL before coming to the article, I think we are just preaching to our respective choirs by adding pro and con arguments. I suggest we remove all references and information from the article that come from sources with an obvious conflict of interest. As a newspaper aimed at the LGBT community, Sydney Star Observer obviously are not going to say many positive things about the ACL; we currently have four references from them. Video game websites are obviously not going to be happy the ACL keeps trying to ban games and increase censorship laws, we currently have four references from notable video game websites. Of course if a mainstream major newspaper reports what a video game (or other opposition) website has said that would be acceptable, but I proposing not quoting the ACL's opposition directly. At the other end of the spectrum "Christian Today" is used as a reference 11 times. To be objective we should again not be quoting Christian websites directly, they are of course much more likely to report on the ACL and are giving the article the same kind of undue weight as the opposition sites do.

So my proposal is removing all references with an obvious conflict of interest, and citing major mainstream sources as much as possible. References coming directly from the ACL should be confined entirely to non-controversial material, such as the info box, vision statement and organisation information. Further debate could be raised about quoting individuals who whilst writing in a neutralish source have an obvious conflict of interest themselves. Miranda Devine is quoted in the article, and she is openly a conservative Christian who is against some LGBT rights, Brian Greig on the other hand has been "involved in gay rights activism during the 1990s", and has a conflict of interest himself.

Your thoughts? If you all think this is a bad idea I won't be offended, it's just a suggestion. Freikorp (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the general principle of a clean-up of the site. However there are a number of issues which need to be considered. 1 That the outcome provides a balanced, encyclopaedic, NPOV presentation of ACL. 2 That assessments of who (and what publications) are neutral (or not) are to be carefully presented. This is going to be difficult if there are any editors who "like or loathe the ACL". 3 There may have to be different emphasis (or weighting given) to (a) factual non-controversial material describing what ACL does and (b) to opinions of those who disagree with ACL - on this Wikipedia site. 4 I am on holidays for another 21 days and suggest this is an appropriate amount of time to reflect on this proposal before any of these significant changes are made. Sam56mas (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, more specific proposal now that I've thought about it more: The issues section and "pro" arguments seems forced to rely heavily on Christian sources. I suggest that any Christian websites, such as the ones currently used in the article: Christian Today, Life Site News, Catholic News, Brindabella Baptist, Sight Magazine, the ACL themselves etc, should only be used for non-controverial statements, such as what the ACL have lobbied on or have done. No opinions.
Accordingly, starting from the top of the page, here are some examples of things that will be removed.
  • "The ACL has been described by Christians as already having "made its influence felt on a state and national level" at this stage."[14]
A Christian speaks favourably of the ACL on a Christian website. This is not objective, or surprising. If it was quoted in a mainstream source that would be acceptable.
  • "Jim Wallace and the ACL have accused both Australian Marriage Equality[15] and The Greens[16][17] of hypocrisy for supporting same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage.
Christian Today provides a direct source of criticism, and accordingly that reference should be removed: The other criticism reference is Jim Wallace writing in Online Opinion, which is fine since Online Opinion is a neutral site and Jim Wallace's opinions on this subject are notable.
While we are on the subject of removing things, I propose removing this:
  • "When questioned by the ACL in August 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, under her government "the Marriage Act will remain unchanged"."[18]
Why is this notable for the ACL's wikipedia article? This is about Julia Gillard, if anywhere it belongs on her wikipedia article. If Julia Gillard said the ACL convinced her to not change the marriage act that would be a notable accomplishment to be mentioned on this article, I really don't think it is notable for this article that the prime minister simply agrees the marriage act should not be changed.
Here is an example of using Christian websites in a neutral and acceptable manner.
  • ACL has established a training program for young people with the target group being 18 to 26 years. The Compass program was a "joint-initiative between ACL and the Compass foundation, which is based in New Zealand”. The program includes mentoring and coaching.[19]
Statement doesn't say how good or effective the program is, it just says it exists. This is neutral, and accordingly fine.
  • The ACL have lobbied to have biological details included on birth certificates.[20]
What the ACL does only, no opinion or spin.
In return I suggest only adding criticism from neutral sources. No criticism on the ACL lobbying against homosexuality from homosexual sources, such as Star Observer. No criticism on the ACL's stance on video games from video game websites. No criticism on the ACL lobbying against euthanasia, abortion or prostitution from pro-euthanasia, pro-choice / feminist, or pro-sex workers rights sources respectively. I'm happy to do all the work myself, and you can simply revert and use the edit summary if you think I've done something innapropraite, or discuss it here.
Now that I've thought about it more I suggest we leave all references in from mainstream / neutral sources, regardless of who wrote them, such as those from Miranda Devine and Brian Greig. If a neutral source has deemed a person notable enough to write in their paper I think that is acceptable; If Jim Wallace writes an article for a neutral source I think it is fine to use that as a source, just not when he writes on the ACL website.
I'm looking forward to your reply. I understand you are on vacation though, so don't feel obligated to reply immediately. Freikorp (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to burden you with even more things to reply to but I have a further suggestion. I propose entirely removing the paragraph from the LGBTI rights section regarding Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson withdrawing from the debate. It is particularly long-winded, and has what can only be described as "over-emphasis on detail", something the neutral editor from request for comment said was what was wrong with this article. It requires several sentences just to establish the background of what happened; the background information is actually longer than the relevant comments and criticism. As this paragraph has has both a comment in favour of the ACL and some criticism of them, accordingly I think it helps neither of our agendas as the arguments once again balance out. But even if they didn't I propose removing it on the grounds it is an over detailed 'news style' paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your above suggestions have now been taken up in the editing process covered by Steps 1 - 6 in Concern about alleged complete bias, factual correctness, violation of NPOV, bold edits and consensus-building below. You suggest Christian websites such as Christian Today, Life Site News, Catholic News, Sight Magazine, the ACL themselves (that one is fair enough) should not be able to provide opinion. Likewise, no criticism on the ACL lobbying against euthanasia, abortion or prostitution from pro-euthanasia, pro-choice / feminist, or pro-sex workers rights sources respectively. Wow - where do I start ?
1 Who decides what sources are on the Freikorp-list? (Is the list like the Conroy-list?)
2 How do you say to Wiki-editor-from-Oxford-St I have just deleted your SameSame-sourced contribution because SameSame is on my banned list? Good luck with that!
3 What goes on the list? Crikey, Eureka Street, The Australian Conservative, Australian Catholic Social Justice, Australian Jewish News, Medicine with Morality (can supply a stacks more examples from the left, the right and the 'middle')?
4 Would you ban a Lutheran-Lesbian or an Anglican-former-High-Court-judge and why?.
Way too many problems. Suggest (as happens now) articles from Wiki-acceptable sources stand (or fall) on their merit.
While I agree with you there should be no 'spin' in Wikipedia, I think it is a bit much to ask for no 'opinion'. I assume ACL is in the business of (what I guess it sees as) ethics, morals, values, truth etc - often requiring explanation.
With your "just-says-it-exists" and "neutral sources" rulings, I sense you would require the Wikipedia entry on Eskimos to read like this: Eskimos live in round houses. They live in cold climates. They eat seals. (Please note - This entry does not contain material from The First Nations' Gazette)
Again I recommend leaving things as they are, with articles from Wiki-acceptable sources standing (or falling) on their merit. All as per WP:FIVE. Sam56mas (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see way too many problems here. In reply:
1. Was it not clear enough? Anything that has an obvious conflict of interest. Christian sites have an obvious conflict of interest. Gay sights have an obvious conflict of interest. The Sydney Morning Herald doe not have a conflict of interest.
2. Firstly this is not an issue yet, and if it was I would discuss it with them, like a normal person. Don't pretend you are concerned with Wiki-editor-from-Oxford-St's feelings. The fact you used the term Wiki-editor-from-Oxford-St speaks volumes about the kind of person you are.
3. Well that was what would have been discussed here.
4. No. How can I possibly explain this more simply for you? As I was saying the person who is quoted (Lutheran-Lesbian or an Anglican-former-High-Court-judge, Jim Wallace, Anti ACL person etc) is not the issue, the issue is who reported them saying it. Jim Wallace quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald is fine. Jim Wallace quoted in Christian Today or SameSame is not fine.
Are you deliberately trying to make this more complicated than it is? Your comment about Eskimos is something I would expect a small child to say. The fact remains, this articles pro and issues section is forced to rely heavily on websites that are specifically Christian. Personally I think that is sad, it just goes to show how much support the ACL gan gather from mainstream Australia. The only way one can counter the overwhelming number of Christian sources you add to this article is by conversely adding sources who are against the ACL. And that just takes as back to where we started. Freikorp (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct

I will progressively clean-up this Wikipedia site, starting with the outrageous distortions (made by Wikipedia editors without any citation-backing) of what Jim Wallace actually said ( = propaganda) which yet-again demonstrates that (1) Wikipedia is being corrupted by, "claiming that such action is similar to Nazi propaganda used to justify the deprivation of rights to Jews" and that (2) Jim Wallace is correct.

After the clean-up, I will then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion Sam56mas (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed an extremely important fact. It doesn't matter if the articles criticising Jim Wallace have distorted his words. This is an encyclopaedia that simply reports what has happened. The ACL WAS criticised by members of the Jewish and gay communities in 2011 for accusing gay rights activists of using Nazi tactics in campaigning for equal rights. This is a fact, not an opinion, they were criticised. And accordingly it is mentioned in this article that they were criticised. If you think the criticism is illogical and distorting the facts, the only thing you can really do about it is find and add a reference that concurs with your opinion. References cannot be removed just because you disagree with the logic of the authors. If a reliable source has stated that that this criticism is an outrageous distortion, by all means, add that to the paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Particuarly as the subject of accuracy of paraphrasing has been raised below. I have absolutely no issue that the "Jewish and gay communities" criticised Jim Wallace. That is true, they did. The issue is the outrageous weasel word-paraphrasing of Wallaces' words. Please read the paragraph. I can not find citations that susupport the 'paraphrased' words.
On 9 June 2012, ACL's Jim Wallace appeared on Channel 7's Sunrise program. Wallace said he would encourage Christians to stand up and make their views known, and stated that he does not agree with Sunrise taking on the role of an activist organisation in the gay marriage debate, claiming that such action is similar to Nazi propaganda used to justify the deprivation of rights to Jews.[117] The ACL has formally written to the Australian Communications and Media Authority claiming that Sunrise, as an advocate for same-sex marriage breaches the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice which requires news to be presented impartially.[118] The ACL were criticised by members of the Jewish and gay communities in 2011 for accusing gay rights activists of using Nazi tactics in campaigning for equal rights,[119][120][121] and again in 2012 for saying gay rights campaigns would do credit to Joseph Goebbels.[122][123] Critics have stated that the ACL's accusation that gay rights campaigners use the same tactics as Nazi public relations officials did is "thoughtless" and "inappropriate",[122] "a desperate play",[123] "obviously untrue",[122] and offensive to holocaust survivors, especially because homosexuals were among those persecuted by the Nazis alongside Jews.[120]
Freikorp you say "References cannot be removed just because you disagree with the logic of the authors. If a reliable source has stated that that this criticism is an outrageous distortion . . . ". That is all fine. However that is not the issue. The problem is that it is Wikipedia editors who have written these exaggerations. You might start by reflecting on - "justify the deprivation of rights to Jews.[117]" (for start [117] is just readers comments hardly WP:RS ) - "because homosexuals were among those persecuted by the Nazis alongside Jews.[120]" - "tactics as Nazi public relations officials [122]" Please check. I think this is definitely a place where the actual words used both by Wallace and his accusers should be used. In summary, when Jim Wallace says - his opponents use propaganda - ironically, this Wikipedia-editor-propagandised Wikipedia entry (now under discussion) provides a classic demonstration, of why that statement is correct.Sam56mas (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it looks like I missed something. I apologise. With the amount of controversial edits that have been made to this page recently it seems I got confused about what, and where, things are being contested. I thought you were contesting what I wrote (Everything from 'The ACL were criticised by members of the Jewish and gay communities') and onward. I can't find citations that support the 'paraphrased' words either. Feel free to reword that. Freikorp (talk) 01:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of WWP

As appropriate, WWP can refer to: World War2 Propaganda (WWP) (see above) or Weasel Word Phrase (WWP) or Where Were_you Phreikorp (WWP). Once Wikipedia Was Prestigious (WWP) but now Wikipedia is Compromised (WWP) (refer http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 ) Sam56mas (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Sam56mas (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So what ! [reply]

I find it ironic that you accuse others of compromising wikipedia's credibility when you edit wikipedia for the sole purpose of promoting the ACL, and have previously been temporarily blocked from editing for blatant vandalism. If you hadn't been caught this wikipedia articles credibility would be far more compromised than it is now.
Also just throwing it out there: promoters of the ACL would make themselves look less desperate if they'd stop flaunting that online opinion article. Another user has already stated that the author of that article is "not sufficiently notable to be included", and RSN's assessments of the author were far from favourable, stating that they "can't see why [the author comments] should be (of significance)" and that his opinion "probably has no due weight". My favourite comment from RSN about the author however is that he "appears not to understand how the Google search facility works". Freikorp (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on 'the understanding of Google' continues three paras below. Sam56mas (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about alleged complete bias, factual correctness, violation of NPOV, bold edits and consensus-building

Grotekennis has objected to the updating of this Wikipedia page and has crudely reverted all updates claiming WP:BRD stating a consensus is needed. Following from the on-going Talk on this page, each update to Revision 515451522, 11:50, 1 October 2012,‎ was documented and explained. Please detail where any particular update leading to Revision 515451522 is either "completely biased" or is a "gross violation of WP:NPOV or is "factually incorrect" and if you have to, get a consensus. In this consensus-building, make sure the motive is to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, rather than something else. (As an aside, why do you make different rules, considering the more extensive and unchallenged WP:BRD previously undertaken by Freikorp during August and September period? I hope you don't change the editing rules depending on what is written about ACL.) Sam56mas (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Sam, I noticed all your major changes because of the simple fact that they were so large. Now, to begin with, let me say that a lot of your changes I either actually agree with you or don't oppose the changes, but several edits contained the injection of NPOV violating material or some material that is completely factually incorrect. Take for example the one you inserted about homosexual "lifestyles" - the usage of the word itself is completely unprofessional as if any additional descriptor is needed there then the one which should be used, if at all, is sexual orientation - you inserted that the ACL's assertions are supported - but in fact the ACL's assertions are completely contradictory to scientific research (that there is no difference in the health between people of different sexual orientations - however LGBT people do sometimes face depression, etc because of discrimination and prejudice - see also Wikipedia's article on homosexuality). So that injection was a completely factually incorrect & in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. There are several other edits which you made which are problematic and these should be discussed and then implemented instead of being pushed through. Thanks, --Grotekennis (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now we are getting there. The word "lifestyle" was a direct quote in both cases used - from the two (notable) sources. It is defensible as 'common usage' with 374,000 "homosexual lifestyle" results returned by Google. (refer note for Freikorp below) So as not to offend sensibilities, I am prepared to remove the word "lifestyle". Would you prefer "sexual orientation"? The health quote is an ACL-supporting citation, written by an Australian doctor, which says that a, "17-year loss in life expectancy among young HIV positive men was reported in 2008 in The Lancet medical journal, despite the best anti-viral treatment. In Australia HIV/AIDS remains overwhelmingly a homosexual disease: the Kirby Institute found more than 80 per cent of new cases are in “men who have sex with men”. All easily verified. Is this not a concerning health issue? However, I can modify this. You say, "There are several other edits which you made which are problematic" OK, please detail them so we can then resolve this impasse. Freikorp - The Google search facility is not really that complex. Sam56mas (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....I know very well it is not that complex, that was the point of my previous comment. The simplicity of google search facility hasn't stopped the author of that online opinion article from making an idiot of himself. The author of the online opinion article didn't do the simple kind of search you just did (searching two words, that are expected to follow each other in syntax, together in inverted commas), he has searched for multiple terms and assumes the hit count implies all the search results associate the two terms together. Of course some of them do, but most of them probably don't. Consider the following study I completed in under 30 seconds. Yes, googling 'Wendy Francis C*nt' gets me about 4 million hits, and googling 'Wendy Francis f*uck' get me about 1.5 million hits. However as a control I googled 'Wendy francis potato' and that got me 58 million hits. That doesn't mean 58 million people have called Wendy Francis a potato, but the author of that online opinion article probably would think it does. But my opinion is beside the point in this case, as I was just pointing out with my previous post what RSN said, if you think that article is objective and the author is notable and competent in using google you are going to have to take it up with the 3 neutral editors who clearly disagree with you. Furthermore I don't see why you brought it up here, but I always reply to people comments directed at me so accordingly my reply is in the middle of a different conversation. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp I agree with you that the writer of that Online Opinion article, "is not notable". However, with great respect, that is irrelevant, as the facts presented by him, remain the facts. In relation to that Google search matter, (upon which you place great weight) the OLO author suggested a Google search using the terms, "female ACL staff members, and the F word" Clearly (for the C word which you use as an example) that is, "Wendy Francis" AND C*nt 3,190 results with 'Pages from Australia' 1,370 results (and as far as I can see most of those are completely insulting towards ACL's Wendy Francis). Freikorp, you have obviously badly misinterpreted what was written as, 'Wendy Francis C*nt' 4,400,000 results. That is vastly different. Using 'Wendy Francis' rather than "Wendy Francis" is a very serious Google error. Your detailed search explanations further confirm that it is the OLO author who has the deeper understanding of Google search functions. In light of this, I suggest that you owe the OLO author an apology for calling him an "idiot" who "does not understand Google". Now, how about giving some thought the current TALK questions, above and below, regarding the ACL Wikipedia entry. Sam56mas (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly you were the one who felt the need to bring the google issue into this section, my above comment was simply defending myself from your condescending remarks. Secondly the author does not specify in his article that he searched for the ACL members names in italics and the curse word separately (yes that would explain the 'thousands' of results as opposed to millions however I thought it was obvious I was simply giving you a basic example of his flaw, I didn't think I would have to go to the trouble of testing out multiple ways of searching to explain that two terms matching do not necessarily mean they words are used in relation to each other). Thirdly searching for the ACL members name with italics and a random innocuous word can still gets more hits than curse words; the point I was making remains valid searching for the terms in either way. I don't think I owe anyone an apology, especially someone who writes an entire article about this wikipedia article being biased and neglects to mention that the only editor who was actually caught vandalising it AND the only editor who has previously refused to partake in conversation about their own controversial edits was you, a pro-ACL editor. You'd think an objective review of this articles history would have at least mentioned that. Fourthly it doesn't matter who wins this argument, since we are not discussing anything being added or removed from the wikipedia article, so accordingly I am not going to waste wikipedia's space by replying to further comments about that OLO article. In the future if a conversation is not aimed at my actions I suggest you don't wikilink to my username and find a find an excuse to attack me over something I have said in another section (mentioning me on your first post here was fine, as you were simply mentioning my actions in a neutral manner). I didn't join in on the conversation initially because I still wanted to hear both your arguments on the matter, once you had both replied to each other, and that still hasn't happened. Freikorp (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, your argument regarding who knows most about Boolean searching is not very convincing. I will not continue that discussion. The issue to be resolved is the current TALK questions, above and below, regarding the ACL Wikipedia entry. I do not understand what you mean by, "I still wanted to hear both your arguments on the matter, once you had both replied to each other, and that still hasn't happened". Are you referring to my previous statement," After the clean-up, I will then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion" ? Of course, I will honour that commitment. Currently I am standing-by for Grotekennis / other, response to my clean-up proposal and / or to respond to my unanswered questions raised on 20:52, 1 October 2012 and 22:27, 1 October 2012. Sam56mas (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I still wanted to hear both your arguments..." You said "how about giving some thought the current TALK questions", which I gathered was you saying I should stop talking about the OLO article and start talking about the main topic of this section. I was just saying the reason I hadn't joined in on the main topic of your first post in this section was because you had asked Grotekennis a reasonable question and since his arguments are logical I was interested to hear his reply. He is the one that found issues with your edits, and I wanted him to elaborate on them before I was going to join in, If I joined in at all. So I guess I am I am standing-by for Grotekennis as well. Freikorp (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly have I missed something? Even if Wallace was wrong using the "unprofessional", lifestyle word and in his reference to health issues - it is incontestable that is what he actually said. The ACL site has an extensive Controversy and criticism section. Within this section Wallace is criticised from the Prime Minister down with his above comments being labelled as "heartless", "wrong" and "totally unacceptable". Are you requiring that Wallace's actual "unprofessional" words are to be censored within Wikipedia? If so, you might be sanitising away that which is being criticised.  ?? Sam56mas (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, why haven't you responded to the second part of my reply - you responded only to the first part, but not to the second part about what scientific organizations say about the issue in question. I'd appreciate a proper response to the second part. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grotekennis - You asked, "what (do) scientific organizations say about the issue in question" For a start the head of the human genome project, Dr Francis Collins has said, "No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years".[85] It seems there is not a consensus amongst scientific organisations on the cause of homosexuality. The matter is currently scientifically unresolved. However - If you check, you will find I had removed the entire paragraph - starting from, "In January 2012 the Herald Sun published an opinion piece by Margaret Court" right through to the 'Francis Collins' words above. Grotekennis - you have put all those words back. It seems to me, had Jim Wallace said, "I believe in God" that "unscientific expression" would cause less Grotekennis-anguish than the mention of the word "lifestyle".
Wikipedia ACL editing does seem very selective (precious?). Within Wikipedia ACL Jim Wallace's actual words get outrageously distorted / embellished by Wikipedia editors - refer Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct. No-one challenges this for any reason, including WP:NPOV Yet, selectively / conversely, entire paragraphs are instantly deleted and detailed explanations and justifications are demanded. A consensus opinion is demanded. It is not unreasonable to suggest all this is WWP
I have offered above - 20:52, 1 October 2012 , "So as not to offend sensibilities, I am prepared to remove the word "lifestyle". Would you prefer "sexual orientation" (being the alternative you have suggested)?
Grotekennis - 11:53, 1 October 2012‎ you said - "You made the Bold change, you were reverted" All my edits are documented - I could, but prefer not to waste everyone's time getting into a debate regarding any WP:BRD issue - which, "is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" rather "making bold edits is encouraged".
I have said above - 20:52, 1 October 2012 - Grotekennis has said that there are several other edits which you (Sam56mas) made which are problematic. OK, please detail them so we can then resolve this impasse.
Grotekennis - You have said - 13:07, 1 October 2012, "let me say that a lot of your changes I either actually agree with you or don't oppose the changes" Can we agree to put up those changes ? - for instance the Grotekennis-deleted-reference to the recent voting in three house of parliament seems to be a worth-while addition. Sam56mas (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, you're still dodging the point. The point is that many things the ACL has said, especially when it comes to LGBTI rights, are completely falsehoods. This should be noted in the article. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grotekennis - Your sentence (aka demand) would appear to a reasonable person as just more of your ongoing obfuscation -- [REPLY EMBEDDED]
- Sam, you're still dodging the point [NOT SO - please read my detailed explanations above]. The point is that many, [PLEASE BE FAIR - I have asked you a number of times to detail your concerns - rather you use the fuzzy word "many"] things the ACL has said [ARE you now expanding your demand beyond your crude deletion currently under discussion?] especially [IMPLYING there is more to come?] when it comes to LGBTI rights, are completely falsehoods [STRONG words - please explain these allegations]. This should be noted in the article. [PLEASE explain what you mean and illustrate how you expect it to be done] Grotekennis - Would you please respond to my offers above made in a genuine endeavour to resolve this impasse. Sam56mas (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm growing tired of waiting for you two to sort this out (not pointing blame at anyone) so out I'll add my two cents while we're waiting. I've gone through and looked at the changes Sam was making and these are the ones I have an issue with.

Removing the statement "The ACL has been involved in several controversies, most prominently in relation to its opposition to various LGBT rights" from the opening paragraph. WP:LEAD specifically states the opening paragraph should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." A one sentence summary of the entire criticism section is acceptable, and I am absolutely certain any neutral third party would agree with me.

The statement: "In regards to homosexual-lifestyles, ACL is supported in its concerns regarding health-issues." Supported BY WHO? Every conceivable opinion in history has been supported by someone somewhere. Please be specific.

If you are going to include this paragraph starting with "On 19 September 2012 Australia’s lower house of Federal Parliament voted against..." I think the number of votes for and against should be mentioned. It is very relevant that the vote in Tasmania would have been a tie if one more vote has of sided in favour of it. And considering that Jim Wallace is allowed to have a comment underneath the facts it should be mentioned that several of those voting against the bill were not opposed to gay marriage and opposed the vote on the grounds that it would initiate a high court challenge and that it should be a federal vote.

Otherwise I'm actually quite pleased with the changes. Freikorp (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp - Thank you. Those are very sensible comments. I am very willing to make the changes, taking into account "the ones (Freikorp) has an issue with". But before I do, I would appreciate, Grotekennis, as it was you who set up this process, if you let us know that you are in agreement. (Grotekennis - a possible take-home message. As you might know - Freikorp and I do not always agree but he does respond in a timely manner, with detailed and focussed comments.) Sam56mas (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Regarding the gay marriage vote comments, the more I think about it the more i think the comments and references shouldn't be used at all. Firstly in order to make the wording objective we will need at least two more sentences, which I think gives the issue more weight than it deserves in the article. And secondly nobody is going to be surprised that the ACL have something positive to say about the fact the issue was voted down, so I don't think any readers will gain anything useful from its inclusion. But I'm sure we'll discuss that later.
Also I should mention something about your edits removing the info regarding the theology student's open letter to Jim Wallace. I am not opposed to this for now because under my proposal in the overhaul suggestion section this comment would be removed anyway, as it comes from a biased source. So whether or not that removal gets contested eventually will depend on your reply to that section. And just so we understand each other on the issue I do not think the theology student himself is notable (in the same manner that the OLO author is not notable). The reason that reference made my threshold for inclusion initially is because the website that reported it is notable; the theology students letter itself does not meet my standards for inclusion. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grotekennis - We are still waiting for you to respond. You will observe what disruption your wholesale-deletion has caused. While you might not accept it, I see what you have done as yet another example of Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct - / - WWP. BTW I am patient, but not easily put-off'. With great respect you would make a better Wiki editor if you were faster with your useful comments and slower with your delete button.
While waiting for your response, I have set out below what I will then progressively do to untangle this generated mess.
1 Revert to revision 515451522 being the last update-version prior to the Grotekennis-wholesale-deletion. (note all the previous update modifications have been detailed on the Article, View_History page)
2 Reinstate the various updates made between 4 Oct and 6 Oct. Not sure what the 05:56, 6 October 2012‎ John Nevard correction is all about. I will let others fix - presumably to create a consistent definition > LGBTII  ? LGBT  ? LGBTI  ? LGBTIQ  ?
3 Incorporate the first set of the Freikorp suggestions 08:06, 6 October 2012
4 Incorporate the second set of Freikorp suggestions 13:56, 6 October 2012 (but not entirely sure what you are saying re the marriage vote and comments - but will take out the Jim Wallace comment). In relation to that which I have removed - I will reinstate the theology-student-issue - but for balance I will also reinstate the Margaret-Court-issue - we can discuss
5 In regards to the third set of Freikorp suggestions 14:21, 6 October 2012 - I will retain the Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson - Tas paragraph. However, I have no objection to the whole thing being removed, as you have suggested. However I note (1) the that comments of Brian Greig do seem insensitive considering the seriousness of the matter. (2) It is obviously not a good look, he being "notable", "former Senator" Greig / Grieg (sic) Refer - Freikorp (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (3) Refer - Freikorp 14:21, 6 October 2012. Can I ask, what is your agenda ? (to which you refer). I thought Wikipedia editors had only one agenda - namely building an NPOV encyclopedia ??
6 Continue the editing clean up and then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion.
Sam56mas (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I support Freikorp's suggestions. Firstly, the mention of controversy over LGBTI rights should stay in the opening paragraph. Secondly, the part about Wallace's mention of "the homosexual lifestyle" should either be removed (or be in quotes, along with a mention that the scientific community has condemned similar such comments because it is not correct to say that any sexual orientation inherently carries any health risks, obviously). Lastly, as to the mentions of marriage legislation, all 4 votes (Both houses of both the Australian Commonwealth and Tasmanian State Parliaments) should be mentioned, along with relevant information (such as the fact that the Coalition was whipped into voting against the proposed marriage equality bill in the Commonwealth parliament, and the fact that some in the Tasmanian upper house voted against the bill because they taught it is a federal matter). --Grotekennis (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grotekennis - thank you. Constructive proposals rather than sledge-hammers are always preferable. I will progressively work through steps 1 - 6 above. Sam56mas (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's it - have completed Steps 1 - 6 above. Responses are provided above to the questions raised in Overhaul suggestion. Sam56mas (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments; OK, I'll bite. Seriously, did you really have to point out I spelt somebody's name wrong on a talk page? With the time and date no less! Does that not strike you as a little petty? This isn't even the first time you've felt the need to go out of your way to point out I've made a typo. I've corrected typographical errors you have made on the actual articles page without feeling the need to specifically bring it up to you, because I don't think an occasional typo is something to be ashamed about. Every time I think we are finally going to be able to have a civil conversation you have to take a cheap shot.

What agenda am I referring to? Honestly, who do you think you are fooling? You clearly go out of your way to add pro arguments for the ACL, and I do the opposite. That is fine. When was the last time you found and added some referenced, notable criticism to the article? (I don't expect you too, just saying) You may attempt to add your pro arguments in a NPOV manner, but if your only goal was building a NPOV encyclopaedia you would be adding the criticism yourself. Were you not blocked from editing for completely removing people saying things you didn't like about the ACL? Your talk page specifically says "You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring, continually removing content in order to suppress recording of criticism. You have been warned about his, and have shown no willingness to discuss the issue." Does that not imply you have an agenda? In true ACL style you have never acknowledged or apologised for doing that. No "Hey sorry I vandalised this page, but I'm not going to do that again and I'll start replying to you now and will work together". No just keep ignoring your mistake and changing the subject when I bring it up. Scroll up and see all the sections on this talk page where you haven't replied to comments/questions. It's the attitude I've come to expect from the ACL and their supporters.

Incidentally I'll tell you why I took an interest in editing this article, I'd been editing wikipedia for years before I'd even heard of the ACL. The first time I heard of them it was from reading an article in a mainstream newspaper about how they deliberately deceived Adshel into thinking complaints about the safe sex ads were coming from members of the public and were not affiliated with any organisation. I thought that was a particularly dishonest thing to do, so I added the information to this article, and upon googling for more informartion I found the controversy Jim Wallace generated after his Anzac day comments, so I added that information to the article too. If the ACL hadn't decided to resort to dishonest tactics, and Jim Wallace hadn't made the kind of offensive statements he made on Anzac Day, you wouldn't have ever had to deal with me editing this article. If you'd all stop taking cheap shots and being dishonest maybe people wouldn't dislike you so much. I don't have a major problem with a group organising a petition against anything (such as your anti gay marriage petition), I have a major problem with deliberately misleading people (such as the Adshel controversy).

Back to talking just about the changes: I've removed the entire paragraph re 'Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson' as per no objection.

The only problem I have with your changes. The reason I was protesting the paragraph "On 19 September 2012, Australia’s House of Representatives voted..." was for the exact same reason I proposed removing the 'Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson' paragraph. It had too much over-detailed explanation just to provide the context for the relevant comments. And the over-deatiled explanation was only half the story, providing the full context was going to make it way too over-detailed. I appreciate that you took my suggestions into consideration re the vote count, but unfortunately the entire paragraph doesn't belong here anymore. It doesn't mention ACL involvement, it just mentions the vote itself. It provides no context as to how this vote was affected by or affects the ACL, and if it did I would have to propose its removal on grounds of being over-detailed news style writing. The information belongs in greater detail at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia (where it already is). Freikorp (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp - Thank you for your detailed comments. I have carefully read through them. I am not sure want you are asking in the last few sentences commencing, "I appreciate . . . ". I would have thought it is not unreasonable to mention (as requested) the parliamentary votes - as the SSM issue lead-up to this critical parliamentary vote(s) has been extensively chronicled on these pages. All the 'voting numbers' citations were particularly selected to mention ACL. If you prefer, I can directly use the ACL comments / reference re the elections from the citations. Are you suggesting that the SSM Galaxy poll results remain, while SSM Parliamentary considerations are removed? Would you prefer that I revert Jim Wallace's direct commentary ("time to move on") paragraph - now removed? It seems relegating (burying?) this important information to Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia is not a good solution either, with one reason being that page reads too pro-SSM with listings only of those who support SSM. In relation to the Grotekennis revisions, firstly thank you for making these edits in a methodical way. I note that you provide almost no explanation on what you have done - refer how Freikorp does it. I would appreciate Freikorp if would you would provide your consideration on each of the latest edits. I have listed them below and numbered them for ease of commenting on them. Of course, Grotekennis/others are welcome to comment also.
The recent edits
15 13:46, 8 October 2012‎ Freikorp (-2,332)‎ (‎Same-sex marriage: removing over-detailed news style reporting as per talk page)
14 13:32, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+24)
13 13:31, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-40)
12 13:29, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+88) (Nazi inferences:)
11 13:28, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+435) (Same-sex marriage:)
10 13:18, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+488) (Issues relating to family: NPOV)
9 13:16, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (-582) ( :Rm redundant references - everything they backed up are also backed up by neutral sources)
8 13:13, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+60) (Issues relating to family:)
7 13:13, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+72) (Issues relating to family:)
6 13:11, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (-145) (Same-sex marriage: rewording for better reading flow)
5 13:10, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+60) (Issues relating to family:)
4 13:09, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+188) (Issues relating to family:)
3 13:06, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-1,038) (Issues relating to family: NPOV, proper sources which directly relate)
2 12:58, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-460)
1 12:55, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (+60) (Replacing dead link with valid one)
To get the ball-rolling I have provided, for each those edits, some material to consider.
15 Freikorp No problems
14 Grotekennis No problems
13 Grotekennis Editing convention explains the abbreviations prior to first-use
12 Grotekennis Nazi inferences para now further embellished refer WWP and Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct. Still waiting for someone to fix the massive distortion here.
11 Grotekennis No problem with having cited ACL criticism, controversies and 'balancing' issues here..
10 Grotekennis Number of dubious edits - Various opinions and POVs not supported by citations. "Whipped to vote . " "with some of the councillers . ." against the passage of marriage equality the > their = "spin". Nice try - Andrews did not say that. Citation actually says Andrews says, "THE gay marriage debate . . ." uncited 'slippery-slope' matter already covered further down the page - currently citation 94.
9 Freikorp Refer to - 6 below
8 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.
7 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.
6 Freikorp Hardly seems presenting a NPOV by removing the two citations to ACL petitions, while retaining two citations to GetUp! petitions. Petitions related to the Paraliamentary voting you now seem to want to remove ?
5 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.
4 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.
3 Grotekennis use of 'restricted to' - a loaded word not backed up by citation. The deletion leaves Wallace-statement uncited. Refer below for discussion on the Grotekennis edits on this paragraph.
2 Grotekennis A reasonable non-controversial paragraph has been removed with no explanation
1 Freikorp Fine no problems
Discussion on the Grotekennis edit in 3 - 8 above
Freikorp prior to your contribution here on this Grotekennis edit you might review your edit made 06:04, 16 June 2012 and your comments on this Talk page Post RfC changes 07:54, 16 June 2012 where you will note I have agreed with your comments and comply with them. For example, even PM Gillard speaking to Jim Wallace on ACL TV - refer your 14:21, 6 October 2012 request. While I though that was a defendable inclusion, I removed it. The current Grotekennis-editing has removed the citation to Wallace's words. Particularly as the matter is controversial, it is highly appropriate that Wikipedia quotes exactly what he said - not what others say he said. Also, the basis for what he says has been crudely removed. Keep in mind there are dozens of 'expert-witnesses' against Wallace/ACL on these pages. Wikipedia is not for anyone's personal positions - even if that position is backed up by 'sceientific-evidence'. More-over the 'Cigarette/health' matter is covered already in the Controversy and criticism section. If more criticism of Wallace is required, please add the cited-criticism-of-ACL/Wallace, in the Controversy and criticism section and not in a form designed to "shift the article in favour" of a position. It seems that this Grotekennis-information better belongs in Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality - or in a related Wikipedia site.
Sam56mas (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll reply to your concerns about my changes now. I have not yet even looked at Grotekennis edits; I will review these and take your concerns into account either tomorrow or the day after but that is not going to happen now as I am too busy.
You mention I have retained two citations to GetUp! petitions. The first citation to the GetUp petition comes from a neutral source and also cites the ACL petition. I have added an inline citation to make this fact obvious to readers. The source does not pick a side, it just reports the facts of both sides and gives both an opportunity to speak. I could not imagine a more appropriate source. The other source that backed up the ACL petition came from a questionable source (anyone can write on OLO) and was written by someone with a clear conflict on interest. The deciding factor in me removing it was that as well as being less reliable, it added nothing new. The neutral article backs up the numbers in the ACL petition AND the fact the petition was organised and collated by ACL. The other reference is not needed, and I actually think it benefits you that this point no longer has to rely on a source that is undeniably less reliable.
The other reference I removed isn't even an article. It is an online open letter to supporters of the ACL on a biased website. This is inappropriate for the same reason it would be inappropriate to use GetUp original counter-petition itself (on the GetUp website) as a reference. I would never consider using the GetUp website as a reference; GetUp's actions only become notable by wikipedia's standards once they have been reported by the mainstream media (and that's how I feel about the ACL's actions also). And once again, everything the biased Brindabella Baptist reference supported is also backed up by the neutral reference, so it is redundant anyway. I strongly stand by my decision to remove these two references.
I've taken into consideration that you pointed out the lead up to the vote has been extensively chronicled on these pages, and that all the 'voting numbers' citations were particularly selected to mention ACL. That's a very good point, I didn't think about that. Accordingly I am content for that paragraph to remain now.
I'll get back to you about Grotekennis edits. And Grotekennis, Sam56mas has a valid point, it would be more helpful to all editors (even the ones that share your opinion of the ACL) if you explained each of your edits as much as you can using the edit summary. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looking at Grotekennis' contested edits one by one.
13. Eh. This is a common abbreviation that I don't think it really needs detailed explanation (the purpose of explanation being to help the reader), but I honestly don't care enough about this either way to argue about it any further.
12. Even though the point Grotekennis is making is valid (in my opinion at least), this is not specifically mentioned in the reference. This edit should accordingly be reverted.
11. If these references don't mention the ACL (which I don't think they do, the first one - tl;dr, and I don't want to create an account just to be able to read the other one) these edits should be reverted
10. Language like "Whipped to vote . " should definitely be removed and replaced with neutral terms. And if the reference did not say "against the passage of marriage equality" accordingly that language should not be used. Revert it back to the way it is written in the reference.
8, 7, 5, 4 and 3. The unexplained removal of reference should be reverted. Changing the language from the way it appears in the reference should be reverted. References that do not mention the ACL should be removed.
2. Agree with Sam56mas. I am assuming good faith for now but if this happens again I would consider it vandalism. Grotekennis, why did you remove this paragraph?
Sam56mas as you can see I agree with most of your concerns. Do keep in mind that Grotekennis is a new editor. He is, ironically, editing in an extremely similar manner to which you were when you started editing this article. My point is maybe he just doesn't know you're not allowed to 'spin' the facts like he has. Assume good faith for now. Also if I've completely missed something let me know. I was quite tired when I looked over this.
Also Grotekennis, can you please start formatting your references using Template:Cite web? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I will progressively respond.Sam56mas (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, some of your edits make it seem as if you are here to promote the ACL - they are heavily biased in favor of the ACL - I would like to know why? To answer each of the concerns: the abbreviation is common and usually used, any wording which is unreferenced is because I assumed it is common knowledge (e.g. the Nazi persecution one). As for 'whipped' - this is a parliamentary term. As to the change in language - if an exact phrase that someone used is to be in the article it should be in quotes - otherwise it can be paraphrased, such as what I did. Finally, the paragraph was not simply removed - part of it was replaced with accurate and related scientific statements - please have a look Freikrop, thanks. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, confusion about what you are doing can be avoided if you use the edit summary to explain your edits. I'm glad you used it for your last edit. That being said, please specify what part of Wikipedia:NPOV you think this paragraph is violating. You said regarding your original edit 'the paragraph was not simply removed - part of it was replaced with accurate and related scientific statements'. Which I fine (as far as justifying why the edit is made), but now you have removed it and not replaced it with anything. Please be more specific than simply citing NPOV.
Regarding you other comments: placing exact phrases in quotes is fine, as is pointing out who said it (For example in the National Marriage Day section it says "The Sydney Morning Herald described the event as a "rally to ridicule gay marriage", it doesn't just say the event was a rally to ridicule gay marriage) If you are going to paraphrase, your edits may be contested, depending on the language you use. I would suggest you stick to putting things in quotes or pointing out who said it, as this in itself cannot be contested.
Unfortunately it does not matter how accurate and relative your scientific references are. This is not an article debating whether or not the ACL is correct or not. It is a neutral encyclopaedia article which reports on what they ACL have done, and how society has specifically reacted to what they have done. Even if your references point out something the ACL have stated is incorrect, unless they mention the ACL (thereby indicating the ACL influenced the references creation, or at least part of it) they should not be used.
The ACL make a lot of outrageously distorted claims here. Example: The ACL state they are against euthanasia because it could lead to people taking their own lives for trivial reasons. This concern is absolutely absurd. There are several active pro-euthanasia groups within Australia and not a single one of them is advocating for people to be able to take their own lives if they do not have a terminal illness. This is a baseless scare tactic that the ACL are using to lobby against euthanasia. However that is fine because wikipedia simply reports what people/organisation do. The ACL have opposed euthanasia on the grounds people would be able to take their own lives for trivial reasons; fact. The reader can make up their own mind on whether the ACL's concern is valid or not. As much as I'd like to I can't just point out to the reader that the ACL concern is baseless, because I don't have a reference that specifically criticises the ACL for saying this. Accordingly you cannot point out that Jim Wallace's concerns are 'directly refuted by the world's major scientific institutions and organisations' using references that do not mention Jim Wallace or the ACL. Freikorp (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp, I completely agree with you. Grotekennis, There is a consensus here. Sam56mas (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freikorp, I would appreciate your wisdom / adjudication to resolve the "Jim Wallace has said . . . " paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam56mas (talkcontribs) 11:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have serious concerns as to whether you have a conflict of interest, Sam. Freikorp, please see Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#POV_concerns. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I am doing to end this dispute is taking the contested source for the intro paragraph to the reliable sources noticeboard. I have already lodges a submission and mentioned Grotekennis' concern that the source is too promotional. Once they get back to me with whether or not this source may be used I will begin looking in to the other concerns here. One step at a time; quite frankly I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the changes being made to this article. Freikorp (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balance

Seems reasonable to believe (re SSM) that the Australian public, the politicians, and ACL know that the vote taken in the House of Representatives was very significant. With the vote in the Senate, as significant. The Tasmanian vote would be of limited significance. With an opinion of Tas LC pollies being of very limited significance. However on these Wikipedia pages there are two sentences devoted to the House of Representatives' response and 15 sentences to the Adshel bus-shelter issues. A variation of the Parkinson bike-shed. I firmly believe that the Australian public, reading ACL Wikipedia, will make up their own minds on the issues and balance presented.Sam56mas (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freikrop (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC) > Agree with Sam56mas. I am assuming good faith for now but if this happens again I would consider it vandalism.
Grotekennis (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC) > Revert per Wikipedia:NPOV
Sam56mas (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC) > We have a problem here[reply]

POV concerns

Sam, from your edit history it seems quite obvious that you are here promote the ACL. Your edits are heavily biased towards the ACL, and you still haven't replied to this concern. I would also like to know whether you are associated with the ACL - basically, do you have a conflict of interest? --Grotekennis (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any POV I have, or you have, is irrelevant here. Considering all the explanation detailed above the response is: Contributions to Wikipedia are to be judged on their adherence to Wikipeda's Policies and Guidelines. If a contribution does not adhere to these encyclopedic-requirements, it needs to be modified, or removed. Sam56mas (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. It is quite clear that you should probably not editing this article, you appear to have a strong conflict of interest here, and seem to associated with the ACL in some form or other. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sam56mas, that's precisely the problem; whatever bias or affiliation you have is preventing you from making edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - among them SPS and NPOV - and prompting you to revert other users' constructive edits. You could help improve the article by correcting non-neutral language (eg. "protect marriage" or "advocate for marriage" for banning same-sex marriage) and by trimming out the stuff from the ACL's website, op-eds by its leadership, and other promotional sources. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am prepared to work through issues which you may wish to raise. Sam56mas (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sam, it would be appreciated if you took note of what concerns I and other editors have raised. --Grotekennis (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the source you are trying to use for the first part of your edit is promotional (as stated before), and the third source for the second part of your edit (in which you remove information with a great amount of reliable and credible sources) appears to be from a POV site of sorts, which is not credible nor reliable and therefore cannot be used. --Grotekennis (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


>Note: In accordance with a recommendation by a volunteer at the Dispute resolution noticeboard I have changed the part of the paragraph which previously began with "It should be noted...". Accordingly, that part of the paragraph, in its updated form, should therefore remain, for it is abundantly sourced and important information to provide to the readers of this article. --Grotekennis (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there is going to be a fair amount of editing coming up, so I just thought I'd let everyone know after tomorrow I won't be available to edit wikipedia at all until November 7th 2012. Just didn't want anyone thinking I was ignoring any issues. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting "Origin" section

The tone in the main part of this section wasn't very appropriate. "Three men from different denominational affiliations and backgrounds founded...", "brainchild" — it's supposed to be purely informational, not a speech. I've tried to establish some more encyclopedic discourse. Please see what you think:

The first paragraph originally:

Three men from different denominational affiliations and backgrounds founded the Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) in 1995. At the time of the founding, two of them resided in Canberra and one in Brisbane. The lobby group was the brainchild of John Gagliardi, a lay leader of a large Pentecostal church in Brisbane, who stated that the vision was to create an organisation that would have influence in the political arena, on behalf of all Christians, no matter what denomination. Gagliardi’s background was in journalism, and he held positions as Editor of the Townsville Bulletin and as anchorman for the Channel 10 news. John McNicoll was a retired Baptist Minister turned lobbyist in Canberra before becoming involved in the Australian Christian Coalition. John Miller worked with a number of community and government organisations and held leadership positions within his independent, community-based church.

My rewrite:

The Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) was founded in 1995 on the initiative of John Gagliardi, a lay leader of a large Pentecostal church in Brisbane. Gagliardi stated that the [or should that be "his"?] vision was to create an organisation that would have influence in the political arena, on behalf of all Christians, no matter what denomination.[citation needed] Gagliardi had held [or should the tense remain as "Gagliardi held"? I. e., did he still hold them in 1995?] journalistic positions as editor of the Townsville Bulletin and as anchorman for the Channel 10 news.[citation needed] Co-founders were John McNicoll, a retired Baptist Minister turned lobbyist in Canberra, and John Miller. Miller worked with a number of community and government organisations and held [or "had held"?] leadership positions within his independent, community-based church.

The paragraph contained some redundance, such as "Gagliardi’s background was in journalism" — yes, obviously, since he'd held the journalistic positions named — and that John McNicoll turned lobbyist in Canberra "before becoming involved in the Australian Christian Coalition" — again obviously, since the paragraph is surely supposed to describe the three men's status at the time of the founding of the ACC. Nevertheless it was short on hard facts, to the point of confusion, and devoid of references. Is the term "the lobby group" merely a meaningless-variation way of saying ACC again, or does it refer to a subgroup within it? (I've assumed the former, but please correct the text if I misunderstood.) And, while there's no reason to doubt that Gagliardi stated that the vision was to create an organisation that would, etc, in what context did he say that? Some kind of founding charter?

Why leave it vague which of the three resided in Canberra and which in Brisbane? If the informatian about residence is deemed to be of interest (I have my doubts; why would we care?), please reinsert it with specifics.

The sentence about John Miller is particularly vague and fluffy ("worked with", "leadership positions"). I've left it for now, but can we please have a reference for him and/or his "community-based church" (perhaps also a name for the latter)? And a less generally admiring tone?

I've made the paragraph shorter by removing fluff, but I don't necessarily want it shorter; please add facts, per my above points. And I really recommend doing something about the John Miller sentence. I'd do it myself, but the information it provides just isn't factual enough for me to know what to write instead.

P.S. Oh, and is there some way of referring to all or part of "the Channel 10 news" that will make it linkable to a wiki article? Bishonen | talk 11:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That section did previously read a bit like story too much. Good work with the rewrite! --Grotekennis (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DRN and Sources

As pointed at the DRN, sources that do not mention the Australian Christian Lobby or that does not make more that a passing mention should be removed from the article. I would like to make a source-by-source scan to see which references are worthy of being here, and which aren't but I don't have the time enough for it. So, i'd like to ask the editors involved to give me a hand at this. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 03:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The corruption of Wikipedia

In summary: At Australian Christian Lobby over the last month article-text conforming to Wikipedia's P&Gs have been deleted and/or replaced. In the deleting/replacing: Wiki P&Gs - have been ignored. Consensus against this - has been ignored. Best efforts of independent editors to explain this should not be done - have been ignored. A threat of being labelled 'vandalism' - has been ignored. Reliable Source Noticeboard consensus against - has been ignored. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard consensus against - has been ignored.

The issue seems to have condensed down to a dispute over two paras.

__________________________________________________________

The original paragraph Jim Wallace has said that, "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes".[30] Australian doctor, David van Gend says that his concern[31] is underpinned by Australian and overseas research.[32] The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen backing Jim Wallace, has said we need to consider, "why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way."[33]

[Citations [30] to [33] all mention ACL].

The replaced paragraph Jim Wallace has said that, "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". According to the world's major scientific institutions and organisations no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others. However, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people does cause psychological harm, and homophobia and lack of acceptance can increase the risks of suidial feelings, health risks, anxiety and depression, especially among LGBT children, who are the most vulnerable.[30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

[Citations [30] to [34] do not contain any reference to ACL. The original citation [30] for "Jim Wallace has said . . . " has been deleted].

In relation to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines The original paragraph conforms to WP:PG. The replaced paragraph contravenes WP:PG specifically WP:NOR for, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," (namely ACL) "and directly support the material being presented." (namely Wallace's statement) The replaced paragraph simply promotes a contrary position.

In relation to a consensus This matter has been discussed extensively over the last month on this Talk page The consensus was that the, Replaced paragraph should be removed. When to taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#trowelandsword.org.au - another consensus. When taken to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Australian_Christian_Lobby - again a consensus. RSB Outcome > The Replaced para should be removed - no ifs, no buts. One of the contributing editors Righteousskills says, that the paragraph should be removed. Editor Grotekennis defiantly quotes Righteousskills (as effectively) saying, that the paragraph should not be removed. For the two dissenting editors, their most significant contributions to arriving at a consensus were: Editor Dominus_Vobisdu "Not at all interested. Never was" and Editor Grotekennis "I have not had time to take part", who also provided a number of fuzzy statements along with some diversionary questions - refer above. Yet, they both find the time to delete article-text within minutes of its uploading. For Dominus_Vobisdu, significant contributions to Wikipedia seem to be: Exterminate!-Exterminate!-editing accompanied by a few cryptic words. Following the most recent sledge-hammer editing by Dominus_Vobisdu, the ACL article is now left with two Origin paragraphs.

In relation to scientific research While the replaced paragraph cites overseas research, a recent (17 Oct 2012) Australian 'scientific study', is the Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales, HIV cases in Australia is on the rise http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 A interesting read. The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". This refutes the "no greater health risk" sentence currently in the Replaced paragraph. That is a Wilson - Wallace consensus. Interestingly the Jensen citation supporting Wallace (also deleted) refers the need for 'compassion and objectivity.' http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html Jensen went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well". Beyond the tragedy of HIV/AIDS for those directly involved including friends, relatives and carers etc, the Australian community is also involved. Beyond the considerable health and welfare costs, HIV research gets $13m boost http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/10/22/hiv-research-gets-13m-boost/87469 (being the Australian 'scientific research' cost, alone) Further - scientific research based findings from Australia - "Gonorrhoea, chlamydia, infectious syphilis and HIV continue to be diagnosed at high rates among men who have sex with men (MSM)". http://www.thedramadownunder.info/static/uploads/sti_testing_guidelines_for_msm_-_updated_2011.pdf

In relation to natural justice Wallace is already extensively criticised for his 'health' statement in the article Controversy and criticism section. Fine - those criticisms were done in conformity with WP:PGs. Natural Justice says Wallace is entitled to defend himself. The replaced paragraph does not allow for that Natural Justice.

In relation to the homosexual community Those censoring the truth do a disservice to the homosexual community. It does not help in putting the case to taxpayers for funding for a problem which apparently does not exist.

In relation to Wikipedia If anyone can simply add their own opinions (even if supported by others) then Wikipedia is corrupted. Wikipedia then is not an encyclopaedia - it is something else. All this crude editing-propaganda undertaken by Wikipedia editors establishes that Jim Wallace is correct.

In relation to Wikipedia editors Based on the above precedent, you can now just add what you like - don't worry about explanations, ignore WP:PGs, don't bother participating in forums or noticeboards, just keep deleting what you don't like and adding what you prefer.

Keep in mind if Wikipedia editors leave this clearly WP:PG-contravening Replaced paragraph unchallenged, they can no longer claim to be creditable.

The two losers in all this are (1) Wikipedia's credibility and (2) the homosexual community's integrity. __________________________________________________________

In 72 hours, either provide a meaningful response, or rectify the paragraph, or both, or I will. Sam56mas (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, you've been completely dismissive of everything several editors have told you and completely ignore everything we have to say. I would suggest that you read everything which has been told to you by several editors in previous discussions (relevant policies/guidelines being WP:NPOV, WP:SPS, etc), and stop pushing your POV across into the article (again see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts - these, especially the first, would probably indicate that you should not be pushing across POV edits on this article as you have been). Finally, ending your comment with the threat does you great disservice - and your entire comment (starting with the heading) has an inappropriate tone to it (see also WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND). Thank you. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before you accuse me of being slow to respond (regardless, I did respond with my above comment quickly), I should note that my first priority is real life, so sometimes I may take some time to respond. And, again, as stated above, pushing threats such as what you did at the end of your comment is not appropriate on Wikipedia - please assume good faith, realise that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and refrain from any personal attacks, whether obvious or mild/implied. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read every word of all your comments. However, you have not yet explained why a 'Wikipedia Core content policy'-conforming para has to be removed and replaced with your non-conforming-WP:OR para.
I have read every word of all the various independent editors, both on this talk page and in noticeboards (including Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Australian_Christian_Lobby) on this subject. A typical comment, "Grotekennis doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is not an opinion article, and that you cannot build a paragraph criticising the ACL using references that do not mention them". All editors agree ( = a consensus) that your WP:OR para is to be deleted. In your responses, you have not addressed (avoided addressing?) this pivotal WP:OR issue.
BTW you quote CDC > youth.htm (which is not what Wallace is saying) - with respect, try CDC > msm.htm http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/msm.htm (re homosexual-lifestyle > health-outcomes - which is what Wallace is saying).
With respect, you should examine what are Wikipedia's Core content policies and what are Wikipedia's Behavioural guidelines. Yes, you are right, I do have a POV. My POV is that Wiki P&Gs should be adhered to. I also have a POV regarding your attempt at censorship. I have another POV regarding your ongoing obfuscation and fillibustering which started here five weeks ago. Editor Freikorp used the term "vandalism" in relation to what you are doing. The issue is not whether Wallace is right or wrong. The issue is not how he expressed what he said. The issue is your sentence, "This conflicts with the position of . . . " which conflicts with Wikipedia Editorial Policy.
Editor Amadscientist says (regarding a possible next step), "This is a clear case for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct". However, before taking that step, to help resolve this impasse, my proposal is for your WP:OR criticism of Wallace to be placed along with the other criticisms of Wallace, within the Controversy and criticism section of the article. Sam56mas (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is to remove this:

Wallace's concern[31] is underpinned by Australian and overseas research.[32][33] The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen backing Jim Wallace, has said we need to consider, "why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way."[34]

and this:

This conflicts with the position of major scientific institutions and organisations, which state that no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others.[105][106] [107] [108] [109]

and to leave only Wallace original statement.--В и к и T 10:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fringe position related to science and medicine, and the mainstream view must be clearly presented as such per WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree with you after reading WP:FRINGE.--В и к и T 10:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before trying to justify a deletion as a, "fringe medical/scientific claim", and saying the "mainstream view must be clearly presented" please re-read the extensive discussion starting here. You may prefer a summary-of-the-major-issues-version, starting here. Please re-read the actual words Wallace used > "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". Please also carefully consider the above para, which is reproduced below.

In relation to scientific research While the replaced paragraph cites overseas research, a recent (17 Oct 2012) Australian 'scientific study', is the Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales, HIV cases in Australia is on the rise http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 A interesting read. The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". This refutes the "no greater health risk" sentence currently in the Replaced paragraph. That is a Wilson - Wallace consensus. Interestingly the Jensen citation supporting Wallace (also deleted) refers the need for 'compassion and objectivity.' http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html Jensen went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well". Beyond the tragedy of HIV/AIDS for those directly involved including friends, relatives and carers etc, the Australian community is also involved. Beyond the considerable health and welfare costs, HIV research gets $13m boost http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/10/22/hiv-research-gets-13m-boost/87469 (being the Australian 'scientific research' cost, alone) Further - scientific research based findings from Australia - "Gonorrhoea, chlamydia, infectious syphilis and HIV continue to be diagnosed at high rates among men who have sex with men (MSM)". http://www.thedramadownunder.info/static/uploads/sti_testing_guidelines_for_msm_-_updated_2011.pdf

The Kirby Institute http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/ (reference also deleted) is (by far) Australia's foremost scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle and health outcomes. Sam56mas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can provide a cite for "Australia's foremost scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle and health outcomes." A search on their site for "homosexual lifestyle" yields no results, and there is no evidence that this organization is authoritative on this subject. - MrX 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby claims their mission is to: "lead the research effort against blood-borne viruses and related infections in Australia and in our region" http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/about-us . They undertake research work on this http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/research-program/hiv-epidemiology-and-prevention-program/about-program But OK, I will reword the sentence to, The Kirby Institute http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/ (reference also deleted) is an Australian scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle health issues.
Of note, the (non-conforming WP:OR) sentence proposed, This conflicts with the position of . . no sexual orientation in and of itself . . , is an example of weasel wording [also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word] designed to move the issue away from the lifestyle issue which Wallace has raised. Sam56mas (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Homosexual lifestyle" itself is a weasel phrase. We don't know the meaning. It's a phrase often used by Christian fundamentalists to denigrate LGBT people.

I don't know what you're trying to prove? You do not seem to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but that's only part of the problem. Position of all major scientific institutions and organisations is that no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others. Perhaps they are all wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place for righting of great wrongs. You're essentially trying to prove that Wallace was right when he said that "homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes", and you quote opinion pieces from conservative blog "mercatornet.com" (one of the main editors of that blog is Michael Cook, member of Opus Dei) with WP:CHERRY-picked "scientific" facts. Your links about HIV/AIDS are irrelevant here. The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through unprotected sexual contact, both heterosexual and homosexual. But the dominant mode of spread worldwide for HIV remains heterosexual transmission. Does that mean that "heterosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". We have article about HIV/AIDS (interesting read).--В и к и T 23:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]

HIV/AIDS indeed is an interesting read including, "The epidemic then rapidly spread among high-risk groups . . ." and cite [191] Sam56mas (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting from your "I don't know . . . right through to disastrous health outcomes" is all an attempt to divert from the facts, researched by Kirby http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 and from other sources. While you say, "you do not seem to understand. . ", I fully understand the distinction between sexual-orientation and sexual-behavior/lifestyle. Rather it is the proposed (non-conforming WP:OR) sentence, This conflicts with the position of major scientific . . which obviously confuses/conflates the two descriptors.
Considering this Wikipedia article extensively cites the Sydney Star Observer, Australian Marriage Equality etc, pejorative references to Mercator Net, Michael Cook, Christian fundamentalists etc don't carry much weight. In regards to your last four sentences: It is true, some heterosexual lifestyles can have disastrous health outcomes, Kirby found, "The (HIV/AIDS) increase was among homosexual men and there was no real rise in heterosexual people last year" - the point Wallace was making. While it is true that heterosexual transmission is the dominant mode of HIV spread worldwide, that has limited bearing on the problem here in Australia.
I believe that it is exceeding preciousness and attempts at censorship which are underlying much of the above discussion. Be that as it may, the facts remain the facts. Sam56mas (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A note for Dominus Vobisdu (re "fringe science organisations") and MrX (re "there is no evidence that this organization is authoritative") Australian researchers have been active in HIV/AIDS research since the early 1980s.[38] The most prominent research organisation is the Kirby Institute (formerly National Centre in HIV Epidemiology & Clinical Research), based at the University of New South Wales, regarded as a leading research institution internationally, and a recipient of one of the first grants of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation outside the United States.[39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Australia#Ongoing_research_and_awareness-raising_efforts While sourced from Wikipedia - the citation [39] is paywall protected - but you can find it and read it. Sam56mas (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I've fully protected the article for two days because of the edit warring. Please make an effort to discuss the changes instead of continually reverting. Let me know if more protection is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference query

I might weigh in here in due course, but for now, I'd be grateful if an editor could provide the citation for the Wallace comment, debated above, that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". In the midst of this very dense discussion and turbulent edit history, I can't actually find where this comment was reported. Assistance anybody? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removed citation > http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/its-all-in-the-packaging-3614462.html Sam56mas (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sam. I see the mutual reverting is continuing. I thought i would jot down my initial thoughts on this debate. First of all, ACL's view on this matter is a fringe view. Specifically, I mean that it is a fringe view that homosexuality has problematic health outcomes. Risk-taking behaviour is another matter, but risk-taking behaviour is not causally linked to homosexuality. I understand why some editors are inserting the material designed to set out the fringe nature of the view. I also understand why Sam is noting that the cited sources are not related to ACL and therefore reverting. I had thought of one potential solution to this, but I'm having trouble finding sources for implementing it. It would be to say:
"ACL representative Jim Wallace caused significant controversy when he stated on X date in Y that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". The incident led to media questioning of ACL's influence and representativeness example, as other organisations such as Y and experts such as Z pointed out that the evidence on which the ACL's claim was poor,example and that the clinical consensus is that blah blah".
However, it relies on finding media or other reliable sources that explicitly link rebuttal of ACL to the professional position papers / academic literature that is currently being cited in the article. I've not found much yet, but others may. I suspect the ACL views were regarded as so extreme that people may not have bothered to go to the literature in their rebuttals. But it may be possible to turn something up. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hamiltonstone thank you. Suggested modification of your proposal:
"Jim Wallace stated on X date in Y that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". reference 1 Wallace's concern is underpinned by Australian and overseas research. reference 2,reference 3 Jensen said . . . . ." reference 4
Controversy and criticism
"In 2012 Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to pull out of her planned appearance at the ACL national conference after Jim Wallace made remarks that were interpreted as suggesting that homosexuality was more hazardous to health than smoking. Ms Gillard called the comments "heartless", "wrong" and "totally unacceptable".[104] The incident led to media questioning of ACL's influence and representativeness. reference 5 Other organisations such as Y and experts such as Z pointed out that the evidence from one study undertaken in Colorado was dubious. reference 6 The clinical consensus is that . . . ".
There is a section within this article dedicated to the various Controversies and criticisms of ACL. If this 'health' C&C (under discussion) is not to be placed in the C&C section, it is fair to ask what is special about this particular C&C? There has been some confusion / blurring of the terms sexual identity/orientation & behavior/lifestyle. Wallace was obviously talking about the latter.
ACL's concern is not 'extreme' or 'fringe' considering the personal and society costs involved and when Associate Professor David Wilson, (head of Kirby Institute), said [21] the matter is of, "concern". Wallace talked more than just lifespan and HIV/AIDS. References 2 and 3 pick up the science underpinning those other concerns, as well as the Kirby research.
There are three studies, quoted, which showed a reduction in life-expectancy. The Canadian study and the Lancet-reported Europe and North America study are discussed and linked in reference 2. The Canadian study was again addressed in reference 3. There was also a Colorado study addressed in reference 6. The Colorado study was debunked in reference 6. Other life-studies and the other issues were not mentioned in reference 6. All three studies deserve to be presented. Sam56mas (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

  • First, I'm not convinced that criticism and controversy should be separate overall. In particular, i don't think it's wise to separate criticisms of the subject's views from the part of the article where those views are expressed. They should be in the same section. As an example where I was recently (tangentially) editing, see the Mitt Romney article (recently promoted to Feature Article status), in which Romney's achievements, and the criticisms of them, are kept together in, for example, a section on Salt Lake City, or the section on his Massachusetts governorship. So it should be here.
  • Second, David van Gend is not a neutral source and can't be used to say something like "Wallace's concern is underpinned by Australian and overseas research"; I'm also not clear whether Mercatornet qualifies as a reliable source - do you know if this has been discussed elsewhere?
  • Third, the mercatornet article is propagandising by seriously misrepresenting the 1997 study. The study was a modelling exercise, it did not work with actual mortality data. When you further realise that is was based on morbidity assumptions that relied on the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the mid-1990s, there is no way that the conclusions would be in any way reliable as to actual health outcomes. But even if you were to set all those problems aside, it misses an absolutely fundamental point: you don't get HIV/AIDS because you are gay. Period. It isn't a product of sexual orientation: it is a product of disease prevalence and behaviours that may lead to exposure. The misrepresentation of the study in that mercatornet piece highlights why we should work with the most reliable possible sources.
  • Fourth, the Lancet piece is irrelevant because it is about HIV positive life expectancy. It is not about homosexual life expectancy. It really is as simple as that: it is the end of the discussion, because Wallace wasn't talking about HIV, he was talking about homosexuality. Which brings me to:
  • Fifth, I'm sorry, but linking health outcomes to homosexuality is fringe. ACL's views on gay marriage are minority but not fringe, its views on film censorship are minority but not fringe, but on this particular matter there is no contemporary science of consequence that I am aware of that supports the proposition that homosexuality causes a reduction in life expectancy. In this respect, you say that Wallace was "obviously talking about the latter" (meaning behaviour). I did not think that wasn't obvious at all. He said "THE homosexual lifestyle" - he did not "SOME homosexual behaviour" - it wasn't qualified. He was also given an opportunity (I believe) to qualify or back away from that kind of statement and essentially did not. There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle: it doesn't exist. There are people who have a homosexual orientation, there are men who have sex with men, there are homosexual and bisexual people who have lifelong monogamous relationships, like some heterosexuals, and homosexual and bisexual people who have multiple partners like other heterosexuals. There is no "homosexual lifestyle", so one can only conclude that he was talking about homosexual orientation. This conclusion is reinforced by his linking of his concern to the issue of gay marriage. If a homosexual couple marry, they are making an undertaking to a relationship that involves the same sexual behaviours as a heterosexual couple. There would not therefore be any behavioural difference. He must therefore be referring to sexual orientation, not behaviour.

Having said all of that, there is still a reasonable discussion to be had about how we communicate these things in the WP article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reasonable and detailed way in which you have discussed this matter. You will note that most of the modifications (aka relentless creative improvements - obviously by those not supporting ACL) are done with limited or no justification - with some of these (repeated) modifications (even) blatantly defying WIki Core Content Policies. Some other examples > in the last few minutes > removing a (previously agreed) reference supporting ACL, burying the remaining ACL-support reference amongst all the various ACL-critics, removing all references to the issues which are currently under discussion on this TP. All of this (and more) while ignoring that the ACL Origin has been corrupted / duplicated by previous editing-efforts.
Responding
  • First: Re Criticism section: Possibly, however that is the way someone set up the structure in this article. Further, structuring of criticism is a problem when criticism spans a number of issues, or are bigger (at least in 'wordage terms') than the issue itself.
  • Second: Many of the criticisms on this article page come from people who could not be considered as 'neutral sources'. I don't know if Mercator net has been tested as a RS. However, it is not a blog. It does have editorial oversight etc. But the facts presented remain the facts. (but if further RS testing is to be undertaken, then various (anti-ACL) sources cited such as australianmarriageequality.com also need to be RS-assessed)
  • Third & Fourth: Sorry, Wallace raised a point. People understand what he is saying - irrespective of 'legalistic' deconstructions of his words.
  • Fifth: ACL's view on gay marriage are hardly 'a minority'. Their 'view' has been endorsed by Australian parliaments. (You might read Andrews re the conscience vote numbers.) Again, ACL views on film classifications (pejoratively termed as censorship) are endorsed by a significant number of Australians - particularly many parents. Implying that there are no heath differences between monogamous homosexual and heterosexual sexual behavors is an over-statement, considering this. It seems there is an attempt to legalistically, (and completely) nullify what Wallace said, because he he did not include the word 'SOME' and did include the word 'LIFESTYLE'. These attempts have been going on over the last five weeks, which have included the ignoring of the outcome of two separate Wikipedia Noticeboard deliberations.
As you say (particularly following the Kirby findings and the Jensen position on 'opportunity to talk', 'compassion', 'objectivity' and 'censorship', "there is still a reasonable discussion to be had about how we communicate these things". Thank you. Sam56mas (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure if you might be referring to my recent edits, which I have tried to explain in my edit summaries, but would be happy to expand upon here. My goal is for this article to be written in an encyclopedic manner, thus my reasoning for rearranging some content. I think the article needs some restructuring and I think there may be excessive detail in some parts.
I removed the statement from Wallace ("the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes") because it was an orphaned paragraph, without context, in an inappropriate section of the article. It should probably be included in the Controversy and criticism section, as there does not seem to be an effort by the ACL to lobby to solve this perceived "disastrous health outcome" issue.
If anyone believes that my edits are not being made in good faith, by all means let me know, directly. - MrX 23:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Reorganization

I would like to propose that the content of the article be reorganized to better align with similar articles, and to present the subject in a less disjointed manner, without a separate Controversy and Criticism section per WP:NOCRIT. As a starting point, here is a proposed outline.

  1. Lede
  2. History
    1. Origin (including a brief mention of their organisational structure)
    2. Purpose (Aims)
  3. Lobbying and issues
    1. Family related issues
      1. Youth and education
      2. Poverty
    2. LGBT related issues
      1. Same-sex marriage/marriage equality related issues (including Nazi inferences and National Marriage Day)
      2. LGBT rights (Medicare, inheritance, government entitlements, hospital visitation, anti-discrimination)
      3. Health issues (?)
    3. Censorship (including video games, Cineplex Australia and Adshel advertisements)
    4. Other issues
      1. Gambling
      2. Religious discrimination
      3. Euthanasia
      4. Abortion
      5. Prostitution

The goal would be to organize by topic, in a more neutral fashion. I'm open to all ideas on how to improve this, including better wording for headings. - MrX 02:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While re-organising the article structure may be beneficial - and there are a number of problems with the above proposal, take things one step at time and firstly resolve the matter under discussion. Sam56mas (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a policy reason that requires such a serial approach. The issue under discussion can continue to be discussed while the overall article is improved. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on what I have proposed. - MrX 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not at all a matter of a "policy reason that requires such a serial approach". It is because people may be distracted and miss responding to on-going discussions (now) further up the page. As an illustration of that problem - you have missed responding to the very valid points raised by hamiltonstone 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC) and hamiltonstone 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC). You have also missed(?) the my responding comments - including the now-duplicated Origin (caused by one of Dominus Vobisdu's crude edits ) - all now a long way above.
I have read the comments. The points raised by hamiltonstone seem very reasonable to me. I have also read the 'Rewriting "Origin" section and see comments from Bishonen and Grotekennis, but none from you.' In support of the discussion, I did some minor copy editing of the Origin section and added a source citation. - MrX
Re the proposed re-organisation: Somewhere you missed ACL lobbying for 'marriage'. It is a very dubious POV to say that ACL is lobbying for(?) / against(?) LTBT related issues. There are obvious weighting-considerations in categorising issues the way you have. Censorship is a loaded word. ACL is supporting media classifications. Critics (some right here, doing their own censoring) say ACL is advocating censorship. You say about the current layout, "it seems like good pitted against evil". Rather, I say, "it looks like a bad marriage". Suggest a divorce might be the best way forward. Suggest creating a separate 'Criticism of ACL' type article WP:NOCRIT#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism > "Criticism of ... article" This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint. (which is another very real problem with the above layout). If there was a 'Criticism of ACL' article you would not be bothered by me editing it - and that is a promise. Sam56mas (talk)
"It is a very dubious POV to say that ACL is lobbying for(?) / against(?) LTBT related issues."
I never said anything of the sort. I was advocating arranging content by issue, irrespective of whether ACL is for or against each issue.
"Censorship is a loaded word."
Loaded with what? Truth? Verifiability? Read the last paragraph in the 'Issues related to censorship' section.
"You say about the current layout, "it seems like good pitted against evil". Rather, I say, "it looks like a bad marriage". Suggest a divorce might be the best way forward. Suggest creating a separate 'Criticism of ACL' type article "
That would be a WP:POVFORK.
I acknowledge the possibility that it may not be best to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article. The outline I proposed was merely a suggestion to test the waters and see if other editors also thought that a restructuring would be helpful. - MrX 13:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference query (continued)

MrX thank you for joining the discussion. With respect, firstly a few questions.

1 Did you track back the Miranda Devine "unused reference that was causing as error message" - for a starter, which was removed (again) 6 minutes later - again without reason - rather than simply just more deleting?

I thought it was an orphaned reference from the sentence I removed. I guess that was not the case, so I apologize for the blunder. - MrX

2 Why did you relegate Robert McClelland's support for ACL to criticisms of ACL?

Because it seemed out of place in the 'Support' section that contained only one sentence. Logically, any mention of support would follow an explanation of the organisation's policies, I would think. In it's current location, I think it provides a logical counterpoint to the criticisms. - MrX

3 Why did you remove Wallace's "orphaned" statement, which (as you know) was all that was left after all citations, background and explanations were crudely deleted, and while the matter is still under discussion and awaiting resolution?

It was an isolated, fringe statement that made no sense in its context. The section is about family issues, not a soapbox for spurious homophobic rants. - MrX

4 Why did you label the statement (at 3) as a, "spurious homophobic rant" when the head of the Kirby Institute also has expressed "concern" regarding the issue to which Wallace is referring?

Because in my opinion, that's what it is. "The homosexual lifestyle" is a fictional, dog whistle term used to brand people because of their immutable characteristics. "Disastrous health outcomes" is unscientific hyperbole and is not at all the same as "concern." If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized. - MrX

The Controversy and criticism section of the article contains Controversy and criticism of ACL. Hardly the place for Wallace's statement. There is already a para (conforming to Wiki P&Gs) criticising Wallace over this particular 'health' statement.

I agree. If it is to be included, it should be in the context of a larger issue pursued by the ACL. This is what I have attempted to address by suggesting that the article should be reorganized. Right now, it seems like good pitted against evil. - MrX

You say, "there does not seem to be an effort by the ACL to lobby to solve this perceived "disastrous health outcome" issue" Wow! - That is for others to do. Though it seems the 'effort' is primarily one of 'suppressing'. ACL is lobbying in support of man - woman marriage. I guess that lobbying coupled with the para above re monogamous homosexual and heterosexual sexual behavors - may be one response to your claim about 'no ACL effort' . Sam56mas (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have argued against including this statement, as WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:POV. I'm not sure why there is such anxiety about making sure this one statement remains in the article. Is it central to the subject? Is it a defining statement about the ACL? It seems to me to be an offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating. - MrX 05:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest it would not have mattered how delicately Wallace might have said what he said, or the basis for his words. I observe editor after editor valiantly trying to keep this out of the public domain, with each editor offering a different reason for (or no reason). BTW, why is Wallace's health comment an "offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating" while his tweet - re 'gay marriage and Islamic' is detailed with commentary and responses, in an L3 headed Section - Anzac Day 2011 ? You have said, "If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized". I am not sure what that means. Could you give me the form of words you have in mind. Sam56mas (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I observe editor after editor valiantly trying to keep this out of the public domain, with each editor offering a different reason for (or no reason)."
And yet you insist on on repeatedly inserting this statement in spite of the tide of consensus against doing so. This would not be so alarming, but for the fact that for nearly six years this has been almost the only article you have edited. One wonders is you are some how associated with the subject, and if possibly you have a conflict of interest.
" BTW, why is Wallace's health comment an "offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating" while his tweet - re 'gay marriage and Islamic' is detailed with commentary and responses, in an L3 headed Section - Anzac Day 2011 ? "
That's a Red herring and please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
" "If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized". I am not sure what that means. Could you give me the form of words you have in mind."
It means that the context of the statement is important (was this part of speech? A response to a reporters question? Was he yelling it over a megaphone at a gay pride parade?) I decline to research and write this content for you, as I am not convinced that it benefits the article. - MrX 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

terminology dispute

This is what it originally was and it's the words Andrews actually used: Opposition families spokesman Kevin Andrews told the Australian Christian Lobby that the battle to protect marriage in the federal parliament "was conclusively won".

This is what it's been changed to: Opposition families spokesman Kevin Andrews told the Australian Christian Lobby that the battle to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples in the federal parliament "was conclusively won".

For one, he didn't tell the ACL what the second second point says. He told the ACL what the first point says. Second, what it's been changed to doesn't make sense as marriage has always been restricted to opposite-sex couples. I'd like somebody to self revert, both to stick to the BRD guideline and to correct the information so the article doesn't report what he didn't say. Zaalbar (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the words you keep reverting to were used by Andrews. That doesn't make any difference; tendentious code by proponents of one side isn't appropriate to use in Wikipedia articles. Please see input by others on your talkpage. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  1. ^ "Social policy lesson for Labor". Hobart Mercury. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
  2. ^ Witness statements, Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, 4 May 2012, retrieved 16 May 2012