Talk:Australian Christian Lobby/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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:

• Is the Criticism paragraph verifiable and suitable for an encyclopedia?
• Is the Parody site http://the-acl.info/ verifiable and suitable for an encyclopedia?

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

User Time/Diff Action Section Sam56mas 14:18, 14 March 2011 Edit Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia Sam56mas 14:21, 14 March 2011 Edit Internet Censorship in Australia HiLo48 14:48, 14 March 2011 1st Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia HiLo48 14:49, 14 March 2011 1st Revert Internet Censorship in Australia Sam56mas 10:30, 15 March 2011 1st Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia HiLo48 11:04, 15 March 2011 2nd Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia Sam56mas 07:13, 16 March 2011 2nd Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia HiLo48 12:44, 16 March 2011 3rd Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia Sam56mas 21:17, 16 March 2011 3rd Revert Lobby Against Gay Rights in Australia

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• Actually scrap that, I've also removed sections that were not related to the organisation. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Makes sense. I agree that's the right move. --Deadly∀ssassin 21:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

_____________________________________________________

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

_____________________

Freikorp, thank you. Sam56mas (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

_________________________________

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

__________________________________________________

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)

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 MOS: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So what !

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)

Discussion on 'the understanding of Google' continues three paras below. Sam56mas (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)