Talk:Australian Christian Lobby/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removed non-encyclopedic content

I have removed the following as it seem to be a trivial opinion and of no real importance to understanding the ACL:

Following a conversation with Wendy Francis of ACL, Chad St. James, Brisbane Editor of Same Same said, "While the two of us did not agree eye to eye on everything, my coffee chat with Wendy did show me another side of the marriage equality debate and why it is so important to exchange polite dialogue with the other side of it."

I removed this, as having little to do with subject of the article. It seems that it belongs in the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia:

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". He believes state governments do not have the constitutional power to make changes to marriage laws and that it would be an "extremely adventurous High Court to fly in the face of the commonwealth parliament".

MrX (talk) 15:00, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your actions and reasoning here. Freikorp (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The ACL Wikipedia entry is corrupted

I claim that the recent ACL article editing has little to do with improving its encyclopaedic quality. Further, some editors appear not to have read Wikipedia:Etiquette WP:EQ.

Just a few examples of what has happened:

1 Over a month ago every (Wiki-P&G-conforming) reference to ACL's-lobbying-for-marriage was removed. A demand-for-consensus-technique prevented them being replaced. Meanwhile, the vast criticism for ACL's-lobbying-for-marriage, was further embellished.

2 Endorsement-of-ACL-statements were all removed. (all Wiki-conforming). Criticism-of-ACL-statements were retained.

3 The rapid anti-ACL editing has mangled the introduction.

4 When it was discovered that a person, speaking at an ACL conference, was actually speaking in 'tendentious code' his words were translated for Wikipedia readers - then removed completely.

5 All attempts to arrive at a consensus on this page - even detailed suggesting rewordings for discussion - are 'countered' by anti-ACL editors by crude personal attacks, fuzzy explanations / justifications, obfuscation, undefined claims of "all sorts of problems . . . and so forth", this-has-been-all-previously-discussed-type answers, demands for yet more consensus (without saying - consensus on what?) etc etc etc. (please re-read this TP)

6 Long drawn out arguments are demanded for defining / redefining meanings of commonly used words such as 'lifestyle', 'marriage', 'abortion' etc. It matters not that those were the words used within the citation-source.

7 Scientific establishments including the Kirby Institute have been labelled and denigrated as 'fringe organisations' with 'fringe theories'.

8 Edits (with detailed summaries and TP explanations) are deleted and dismissed with "Get real" and "POV, undue weight" type comments.

9 When a consensus, when a RSN outcome and when a DRN outcome went against anti-ACL editors, each outcome in turn was simply ignored.

10 Anti-ACL editors ignored requests to participate on a DRN - "Not at all interested. Never was" or "I have not had time to take part" but can delete slabs of uploaded text, with 'get-a-consensus-demand', within minutes.

11 All support for Wallace's 'homosexual-health-concerns' comment (all Wiki-conforming) were deleted. These were removed almost instantaneously and no compromise was permitted. It seems this is a hyper-sensitive issue. Wallace's comment was then deleted. This is/was not an insignificant issue, as it involved Australia's Prime Minister. (Conversely, both Facebook-related and Tweet-related criticism of ACL is documented in detail.)

12 It has been a very difficult long-drawn out task to remove multiple and 'creative' anti-ACL WP:OR inclusions from the article.

13 Even the wise advice from the editor of Same Same (in an agreement-discussion with ACL) > "it is so important to exchange polite dialogue" has been removed.

14 The ACL-article now contains 876 words (50% of what it was) on ACL's-lobbying-efforts and 1,821 words criticising ACL's-lobbying-efforts.

15 Considering the last four edits, there is an example of, removing-excess-detail-and-casting-material-in-a-more-encyclopaedic-tone, weaselling and shortening which distorts the original information for the two subjects. There is more of this type of creative-editing. The following three Next-exits (aka deletions) prior to the latest protection-block are equally arbitrary and dubious.

16 ACL does lobby in other areas - references to these have been removed. Article-criticisms of ACL primarily and extensively relate to LGTBI issues (that in itself says a lot). However there is one further criticism detailed in the article - Issues related to censorship. ACL is permitted 16 words in which to outline its case. 350 words are taken to criticise ACL. Keep in mind - ACL is/was lobbying-for-reclassification of some media. This is Wikipedia-weaselled into ACL is lobbying-for-censorship. Considering the 15 paras above, it is ironic (hypocritical?) that ACL is unfairly and specifically criticised, within ACL Wikipedia (under a H2 heading), for censorship.

The ACL Wikipedia entry is corrupted. Readers will immediately recognise that it is compromised. Sam56mas (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns:

Replies embedded Sam56mas (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2: I have been hoping for quite some time that other editors would peer review both the "Issues" and the "Controversy" section. I'm happy with the issues section now; what I (and other editors) perceive to be both trivial and "news style" over-detailed reporting has largely been removed, however, I have not removed any of it myself. Why have these same editors have not touched the controversy section? Well I don't know, you'd have to ask them. I did, quite some time ago, shorten it myself and remove again what I perceived to be more trivial mentions. I can only assume they either approve of what is there (see my response to your point 14 below) or were working through the article from top to bottom and haven't got to that part yet. I certainly wouldn't say the criticism section has been embellished. Correct me if I have missed something but the only thing that has been added is an update on the internet filter issue, which is just an update on what has happened - not criticism, and counter-criticism from Robert McClelland.

1, 2 I agree with you - for others to respond. Serious issues TO BE RESOLVED.

Point 3: I think the introduction is quite fair and balanced now, what exactly is your concern here?

3 You need to read the first three paras again Simple issue TO BE RESOLVED.

Points 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11. I've stayed out of these arguments as quite frankly I haven't had the time to research the issues enough to join in on the conversation. I know that isn't helpful to you, but my time on wikipedia is spent editing many articles. I will take this time to point out that I agree with editor hamiltonstone, who said "Your devotion to the one page often prevents a consensus from emerging because the rest of us don't want to spend all our time here, but you should not think that this means that your views have support."

4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 I agree with you - for others to respond. Many issues TO BE RESOLVED.

Point 8: Fair point, these could be considered violations of Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Points 9 and 10: Very valid concern. Those specific actions from editors bothered me.

Point 12: A valid point yes however this is resolved now.

8, 9 10,12 I agree with you - these editors show little regard for WP:EQ. Familiar theme - demonstrated here. Delete. Delete. Don't use Wiki processes to explain. Delete. Issues TO BE RESOLVED..

Point 13: As stated above, I agree with these removals.

13 The Edit summary, "It seems that it belongs in the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia" seems 'tendentious code' for, "It seems that it belongs in the trash bin". Issue TO BE RESOLVED.

Point 14: The amount of words by comparison is not an issue per se. As I've mentioned before, the amount of criticism in the ACL article should be directly proportional to the amount of criticism they get in the media. The ACL do get asked for comment for a wide range of issues, and accordingly there are mentioned in a paragraph or two in a lot of articles. But how many articles have been written that devote a large part if not all of the article to criticising the ACL? And by comparison how many have been written specifically to support them? Of course this does not necessarily mean the criticism is, in reality, valid (Let's face it, "ACL doing a good job" just doesn't get readers attention like "Anger over rally to ridicule gay marriage" does), but the criticism is nevertheless there and accordingly should be reported in this wikipedia entry.

14 Natural Justice > individuals have a "right to a fair hearing" and to be given the "opportunity to present their own case". Issues TO BE RESOLVED.

15 Creative weaselling and shortening remains a continuing problem in this article. > " . . ACL has implicated divorce, single-parent families and violence . . " Issues TO BE RESOLVED.

Point 16: I disagree strongly. An internet filter that blocks all pornography (amongst other things) meets the definition for censorship. The ban on R18+ video games in Australia specifically meant certain games (for example Left 4 Dead 2) had to be censored. The ACL lobbied for the internet filter and for the video game censorship to remain in place. I firmly believe "Issues relating to censorship" is the most appropriate title here. It is certainly much more objective and appropriate than the title you originally wanted, "Protecting Children".

16 Think you have missed the point. In Wikipedia, ACL is ironically criticised for 'censorship', meanwhile 'censorship' is used in Wikipedia to prevent ACL defending itself - refer point 14 and most of the other points above. For instance - What are ACL's concerns about film classifications? - gone. What are ACL's concerns about violent video games? - gone (leaving one sentence). Issues TO BE RESOLVED.

To summarise, I see some issues with particular editors attitudes, and with the amount of time it took to get certain things done, but as it currently stands I see no major problems with the article. I certainly don't think it is corrupted, and don't think that readers will "immediately recognise that it is compromised", but that's just my opinion. Freikorp (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering your own responses and my comments - the evidence does not support: "I see no major problems with the article". For instance, a Wikipedia reader seeking information on the ACL's lobbying for marriage - a massive, in-the-media-every-day-for-months affair - which was ultimately successful in the nation's highest parliament - will find nothing, as all unjustifiably removed. ACL Wikipedia has been corrupted. Many issues in this article remain TO BE RESOLVED. Sam56mas (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

‎Sam56mas, you might consider tackling one issue at a time, instead of posting long lists of perceived issues, many of which have been refuted by other editors. I would also suggest learning how to format your talk page posts (see WP:INDENT, Wikipedia:Tutorial (Talk pages) and WP:TALK) as indenting six space makes it difficult to follow and participate in the discussion.

I agree with Freikorp that the article is not corrupted, but it certainly could benefit from improvements. The best way to accomplish this, in my opinion, is to engage other editors collaboratively, listen, and be willing to compromise.

To respond to a specific issue with the two sentences I removed (above):

You wrote: "The Edit summary, "It seems that it belongs in the article Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia" seems 'tendentious code' for, "It seems that it belongs in the trash bin"."

The content that I removed begins "Opposition families spokesman Kevin Andrews told the Australian Christian Lobby..." How is this remark to the ACL noteworthy, and how does it help the reader understand the policies and activities of the ACL? It seems to be to be an attempt to add credibility to the ACL's positions.

I'm a little concerned about this statement you made (emphasis added):

"In Wikipedia, ACL is ironically criticised for 'censorship', meanwhile 'censorship' is used in Wikipedia to prevent ACL defending itself - refer point 14 and most of the other points above."

This apparent lapsus linguae seems to imply that someone from the ACL is trying to defend the ACL by editing this article, suggesting a strong possibility of a conflict of interest.

Again, I strongly suggest tackling and resolving one issue at a time so as not to scare off other editors with massive amounts of arguments and counterarguments. Of course, you can feel free to ignore my advice if you choose to. - MrX 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

__________________

Rather than me debating/refuting your responses, please check the history of this article. The editing sequences have been in this form:

All insertions are accompanied by detailed explanations. This has included detailed TP agreement by other editors on the sentences - which were subsequently updated over a period. This process has also involved RSN agreement and DRN agreement. This is then followed by, a single, dubious, poorly-explained deletion of the lot, such as here1 Followed by detailed explanations and proposed recovery - line by line, over the next month. This is then followed by, a single, dubious, poorly-explained deletion of the lot, by a 'new' editor, such as here2. Followed by detailed explanations and proposed recovery - line by line. This is then followed by, a single, dubious, poorly-explained deletion of the lot, such as here3 All this unfair not-WP:EQ-conforming editing has left a complex tangle. Please check.

Much of the (if any) TP justification for deletions has been fuzzy and often involve, "all-this-has been-refuted-previously" type wordings.

You, "strongly suggest tackling and resolving one issue at a time". I completely agree. As a possible way forward is to start again just before the second protection block and the next set of dubious deletions.

And ensuring,

1 that issues are tackled and resolved one at a time

2 that all editors comply with WP:EQ

3 that all edits comply with Wiki Policies and Guidelines.

Following up the offer by the Protection Block Administrator: "Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the editprotected template to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is supported by consensus". How about, the protection block remain. A paragraph / wording for discussion is then nominated. Issue resolved > include / modify / or reject. Para unlocked. Article updated. Article protection is locked again. Then move to the next nominated paragraph / wording for discussion and resolution etc - through to completion. Sam56mas (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

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)

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).

It is appropriate because it is his opinion. Interpreting his "code" and then re-writing is OR (among other things). Zaalbar (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the recent spat of removals. You should look for independent sources for the content before deleting it. Many articles on Wikipedia are significantly sourced by primary sources or none at all so unless the content doesn't belong in the article for other reasons, then you should self-revert. Zaalbar (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

In my view, much of that content does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Much of it is nothing more than self-serving statements by the ACL, punctuated with phrases like "protect marriage", "rejecting polygamy" and "sexualisation of children". Some is just poorly written, such as sentences which start with " In regards to..." and "Regarding persecution..." Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the ACL to promote its agenda, especially when it relies so heavily on the statements of one person. For these reasons, and reasons stated by other editors, I would not be surprised to see some of this content be removed again in an effort to improve the article. - MrX 03:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

People need to read their views and sentences can always be improved. While I agree that the article does contain some unnecessary details, way too much was removed. Anything removed should list reasons for the removal in the edit summary, however I don't think the fact that it is referenced through a primary source is sufficient. Zaalbar (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to seek consensus for the version you want, not keep edit warring it into the article. I have reported your recent edits to the Edit warring noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

You and others need to stick to BRD. Zaalbar (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MrX that the added material was based on self-serving self-published material and used deceptive in-universe code talk. Articles should be based on reliable independent sources, and the ACL is a lousy source for the simple reason that they routinely misrepresentent themselves. Presenting their position in their own language is not an option here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to look for independent sources before removing this content. I doubt you or anybody else here has bothered to do that. Most of what was removed was simply a record of what people have said or programs they've been through. There's no POV issues there. Zaalbar (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Dominus can perfectly remove information that is not sourced or not covered by the sources provided, regardless of the POV... Although, I support the idea to do a little search first. Of course, it isn't mandatory. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

"No consensus. Get consensus on talk page for your changes." I was reverting a change. There's no consensus for those changes. You should self-revert. Zaalbar (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

At least three editors (Dominus Vobisdu, Roscelese and MrX) clearly support removing all, or most, of the content being discussed, so there is an indication of consensus.

With respect to your assertion that "You need to look for independent sources before removing this content"; that's not really how Wikipedia works. It is not up to other editors to go on a scavenger hunt for reliable sources for content that you want in the article. Also, reliable sources are necessary, but may be insufficient for inclusion of content in an article. The content needs to be relevant, encyclopedic, of appropriate weight, neutral and reasonably well-written. Over time, this article has become a loosely associated list of statements and ideas of the ACL.

I agree with Dominus Vobisdu's above statement, which has been repeated by other editors over the past couple of years. You may benefit from reading some good articles here or here for examples of how these types of article should be written.- MrX 13:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see a conflict of interest in all three editors you mentioned. No consensus. 3v1 is also not consensus even if you didn't all have a conflict of interest. If they are insufficient for inclusion in the article then put the reasons in the edit summary or on the talk page. The only reasons have been that they are primary sources or vaguely said to be POV. Zaalbar (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that removal of content should be justified in edit summaries, and ideally, should be in smaller chunks. I'm curious though, what conflict of interest do you believe exists in the three editors that I mentioned? - MrX 14:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As am I. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Based on their/your edits to this article, both in edit summaries and the content (as well as other articles), you three obviously have a strong dislike to this group and similar ones. Although that's fine, it's interfering with how you edit this article. Zaalbar (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and don't fling around false accusations in the hope that they will magically permit you to add gobs of promotional material to an encyclopedia article. Frankly, from your insistence on using non-neutral language and self-published sources, you are more likely to have a COI than we are, but it could also be that you are just any old editor who is not here to improve the encyclopedia. Now, if you have any arguments against removing this multitude of grossly inferior sources, we'd love to hear them. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Describing everything you removed as "promotional material" is false. We should use neutral language as long as we don't try to interpret what they say then change it to what we think it is. It's common to use self-published sources when writing about an organisation and there weren't POV issues stemming from that with most of what you removed. Zaalbar (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, not an option here. The self-published sources are self-serving, and make exceptional claims about third parties, including fringe claims related to science and medicine. They therefore fail WP:SPS. They also use catch words and phrases with meanings that diverge widely from common English usage to whitewash or misrepresent themselves and their activities. Sorry, but the ACL is not a reliable and credible source even about itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The following fails your description and I didn't need to go far to find it as it's just the first chunk of text removed: They also operate the 'Make A Stand' website "to assist the Australian public to respond to political issues in a timely and effective manner." - This is relevant to the article and describes the website in quote marks to show that it is their opinion. I don't see anything wrong with its inclusion. Zaalbar (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm mostly staying on the sidelines and watching, but will chip in here to say that I tend to agree with MrX and Dominus. Quoting sources own words about themselves and putting them in quotes to be clear isn't sufficient to ensure neutrality. The example you quote is a good one of why this is inadequate. That quote claims that the site is assisting the public as a whole (it is not: it provides no assistance to pro-gay marriage people, for example) to make responses that are "timely and effective". But the same page says they are run by the ACL, and the issues they pursue are ACL issues, with an ACL POV. The quoted words are in fact a clearly inadequate way to neutrally describe what the page is for. We need a third party reliable source to tell us about the page. And, if there isn't a third party reliable source talking about it, then it should not be mentioned in the article at all. Hence deletion of the text. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be neutral as it's their opinion. It just says it assists the Australian public, not every aspect of the Australian public so I don't think that objection holds weight. I'm sure you don't believe for a second that any of those editors bothered to look for third party sources. Zaalbar (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a self-serving statement. They are portraying their self-promotional activities as a "service to the public". It's their opinion, but it's not noteworthy as, of course, they have a high opinion of themselves. Nor is the site that they have a self-promotional website noteworthy, as practically every such organization does. Putting it in quotes doesn't help at all. By the way, were not at all obligated to look for third party sources, especially if we think they don't exist. That's YOUR job, per WP:BURDEN. Don't try to fob off you work on others. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You should consider following the subsection you linked to: Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material on these grounds, please indicate that you have a concern that the material itself is unverifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, then it is better to provide sourcing yourself than to remove the material. Zaalbar (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying you can find independent sources that meet our criteria as WP:RS? In any case, you have at least 6 editors disagreeing with your edits - if you continue to add them without consensus that is edit warring. You need to get consensus here now. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

You have plenty of time to find references. No one is hurrying you or setting a deadline, and you've been saved a great deal of time by us telling you what sources are unnaceptable. You should have found acceptable references BEFORE adding the material, instead of wasting our time edit-warring, wiki-lawyering and trying to shift the burden of doing YOUR work on other editors. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Lucky consensus isn't based on counting votes. I didn't add the material nor am I shifting the burden. You and others should follow the WP:BURDEN guideline. One option is to place a citation needed template and the other is to replace the primary sources with third-party sources before butchering the article, as set out in the guideline. Zaalbar (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

In your dreams. Without reliable independent secondary sources, you don't have a leg to stand on, and there is no point in continuing this discussion. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want to follow WP:BURDEN then don't bring it up. Zaalbar (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Zaalbar, I have to agree with the others above. First, WP:BURDEN says that a cite tag is one option. Another option is to delete the material. Deletion is the appropriate response if editors think the material is non-notable or POV, which are both relevant issues here. Second, how do you know they didn't look for other sources? Third, I did look for them and found nothing (in the case of the Make a Stand sentence). That sentence should be removed. This may be true for other material too. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a website operated by an organisation is notable enough for inclusion, unless they operate around half a dozen. There's no POV issues with giving their opinion on the purpose of their own website. The discussion above makes it clear that they didn't look for other sources for any of the material they removed. Zaalbar (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policies here are WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In this Wikipedia ACL article, there are seriously differing views on how the article should proceed. For this reason, there is a need to undertake a more considered examination of the situation. The current discussion above is not sufficiently focussed to deal with specific sentences which may, or my not, need to be changed. The, "you get a consensus" is almost meaningless considering there are 11,984 bytes (and possibly 1,850 words) of deletions under discussion. Similarly, at this point, it is not possible for anyone to declare that a, "consensus is now achieved".

The ACL article was structured (by others) containing three elements: 'Opening', 'Lobbying efforts' & 'Controversy and criticism'. Recently the section 'Lobbying efforts' has been edited, which has reducing its content by approximately 40%. There was no change to the other elements. There are reasons to believe that many of the deletions were not justified. They were usually accompanied with inadequate and debatable explanations. Further, some editors have ignored prior, detailed TP discussions and editing-explanations and simply deleted slabs of text. Editors have ignored an RSNboard outcome which went against them. Editors have ignored a DRNboard outcome against them. (even blatantly rewording it as an 'approval') Editors continue to ignore a NOR Wiki Core Content Policy.

One editor in particular, Dominus Vobisdu did not participate in a DRNboard discussion - saying, "Not at all interested. Never was" - but has repeatedly deleted large slabs of (various) text within minutes of it being posted. His explanations such as "Get real" and "POV, undue weight" are not conducive to fairly resolving issues. DV also claims when some people speak they are actually speaking in "tendentious code". DV then interprets this 'code' and substitutes his words for the Wikipedia readers.

As an indicator of past difficulties faced, DV has repeatedly labelled Australia's Kirby Institute as a "fringe organisation" with "fringe theories" and then removed blocks of associated text. Possibly as DV is not familiar with the Australian situation under discussion, that might have been a case of good-faith edit-errors - but this is unlikely. This Kirby-matter does not form part of this 11,984 byte deletion discussion.

The Wiki-locking-protection explanation, "This protection is not an endorsement of the current version", is fine and is clearly understood. However as DV immediately reverts any/all updates, it his version which has become the Wiki-protected version. This was also the case with the previous Wiki-protected version.

The purpose of this note is: (1) To notify editors there will be series of issues and question, to be posted in the next few days. (2) To notify that the current 5 day edit restriction period may have to be extended to give time for these issues to be appropriately resolved. Sam56mas (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

________________________

INTRODUCTION

The following is presented as a means of recovering from the tangle of bold-edits and subsequent reverts which has lead to the current disputed wording of the article. As per above, it currently not possible to claim a 'consensus has been achieved'.

EXPLANATION

The ACL article has been recently heavily edited. One problem was caused when a very bold edit (plus subsequent edits) starting here. With very limited explanation, this edit outcome was subsequently 'locked in' following further edits and revisions in other areas. Wikipedia templates such as are designed to help prevent these problems occurring before they require very complex recoveries, as per below.

There has been considerable editor-discussion on the 'Make a Stand' citation. The sentence was originally placed under a heading Aim, subsequently moved to Lobbying efforts, then removed. It is contended that this primary source sentence fully complies with WP:SELFSOURCE. The revision shows where it was located. (It should be noted that this same "Restor NPOV Changes" - another poorly explained revision - resulted in the article now having two Origin paragraphs.) In the matter of self-sourcing of citations, I believe it is instructive to reflect on Australian_Greens with its self-sourced citations. If editors are undertaking 'encyclopaedic Wikipedia corrections' of the Australian_Christian_Lobby article, what non-evasive reason (such as 'otherstuff') is there for not also correcting the Greens article ? I note there is more on the high standards demanded for a Wikipedia ACL article - here.

That 'Make a Stand' is the only one with a primary source citation, in the list below.

As an aside, the current article has a considerable number of criticisms on ACL's position on marriage, however ACL's actual position on marriage has been removed.

While still debatable, the deleted Christian Today citations have been removed from the list below to facilitate a consensus. The sentences below - and their 20 citations - are those it is claimed that have been inappropriately removed. They are sourced from the revision-deletions as of 12:11, 10 November 2012. After the consensus, the agreed sentences will be replaced in their original positions.

To help resolve these issues, a consensus is required for the two areas detailed below.

1. A CONSENSUS BASED ON WIKI P&Gs IS REQUIRED to establish which of the 20 previously deleted citations (and sentences) below, are acceptable

Lobbying efforts

They also operate the 'Make A Stand' website "to assist the Australian public to respond to political issues in a timely and effective manner."

Issues relating to family

Following a killing of at least 93 people in Norway by a person who described the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as "part of my training-simulation", ACL called for a ban on video games where, "violence is excessive or gratuitous". ACL has consistently supported marriage as, "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". In 2004, ACL jointly organised the National Marriage Forum to support this amendment to the Marriage Act and the Family Law Act. ACL continues to advocate for marriage, as defined in the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. In May 2012 Jim Wallace appeared before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee regarding the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. ACL made two written submissions to the committee. Mr Wallace presented to the committee the ACL's position. Within his submission he stated that, "it is simply incongruous that homosexuality and heterosexuality be treated as equal, because they are so clearly different". In 2011 a document, endorsing marriage to remain between a man and a woman, was prepared by the Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, under the auspices of the ACL. The document was endorsed by 50 of the national church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Lutheran, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist Church and Uniting Church. Jim Wallace and the ACL have accused the Australian Greens of hypocrisy for supporting same-sex marriage but not polygamous marriage. ACL has worked with Micah Challenge to Make Poverty History and to achieve the Millennium Development Goals on halving global poverty by 2012. In May 2012, Jim Wallace, said: "That we have both major parties abandoning their commitment to the world's poorest is a sad commentary on the level of both integrity and compassion in a Parliament Australians are increasingly losing confidence in." ACL has called on the Federal Government to pressure Egypt to protect religious minorities such as the Copts.

Other issues

The ACL is pro-life and has lobbied for the repeal of legislation that sanctions abortion on demand. ACL has sponsored Gianna Jessen, an 'abortion survivor' to come to Australia to talk about her experiences and to lobby federal politicians ahead of a Senate debate on late term abortions. Following what the ACL described as a "heart-wrenching story" about a sperm donor being removed from his child’s birth certificate, the ACL have lobbied to have biological details included on birth certificates, on the grounds that removing the details could be damaging to children and their biological parents. The ACL lobbies against moves to legalise euthanasia by various territory, state and federal jurisdictions. ACL claims the cheapening of human life by the promotion of suicide options, could lead to dangerous scenarios where healthy people could end their lives for comparatively trivial reasons such as a relationship break up. The ACL lobbies against prostitution and have stated that some legal Australian brothels have ties to human trafficking and sex slavery. As part of their efforts against prostitution, the ACL stated they were screening the documentary Nefarious: Merchant of Souls around Australia. The documentary "investigates the global sex trade and its links to legal brothels".

2. A CONSENSUS BASED ON WIKI P&Gs IS REQUIRED to establish how the respond to creative paraphrasing.

First example

Original wording : to protect marriage.

Revised wording : to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Second example

Original wording : the repeal of legislation that sanctions abortion on demand.

Revised wording : the repeal of legislation that secures abortion rights.

Suggest in these contentious WP:WEASEL, WP:OR cases, use the actual words rather than creative paraphrasing > Andrews said, " . . . to protect marriage."

FINALLY

User:Bbb23 Would you keep the protection-block in place until a consensus has been reached. Also it would be appreciated if a consensus is not reached, that you adjudicate and/or suggest a way forward. Thanking you. Sam56mas (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

What ever gave you the impression that consensus hasn't been reached? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC) Thank you for your input. Sam56mas (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

As an example of why material has been removed: The sentence "Following what the ACL described as a "heart-wrenching story" about a sperm donor being removed from his child’s birth certificate, the ACL have lobbied to have biological details included on birth certificates" would be better worded as "The ACL have lobbied to have biological details included on birth certificates." That the ACL thinks it's 'heart wrenching' is heart-wrenchingly-hyperbolic and not appropriate for an encyclopedia, especially when it comes from a primary source. It's understandable why it would be removed, because there is not much salvageable information once the rhetoric is stripped away.

Some of this content simple needs rewording, while some of it should be removed because it consists of trivial events or statements that promote the subject an undue manner. Again, I advocate a more surgical approach to these edits.

With regard to what you refer to as creative paraphrasing (2), the norm is to use phrases which are commonly accepted as neutral. For example "Protect marriages," as has been previously pointed out, is a euphemism for prevent marriage (by a minority few). Protecting marriage is not the logical result of preventing certain people from being married. Also, I think you may not understand what is meant by WP:WEASEL and you may benefit from a re-reading the guideline. Using commonly accepted words and phrases (i.e. those used by academics and reliable third party sources) is not original research.

Please review other articles, especially good articles, on these types of controversial subjects to get a better idea of how community consensus has determined how such articles should be written. - MrX 03:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I find their description of it as a heart-wrenching story important. It establishes ACL's beliefs/characteristics and sort-of their reasoning for lobbying. The description of it as a heart-wrenching story is not critical however, and most of the information is still salvageable and important. You weren't advocating a surgical approach above but rather that there's consensus for the removal. With regard to WP:WEASEL: Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed.[5] However, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but we, as editors, cannot do so ourselves, since that would be original research or would violate the neutral point of view. I agree with your statement: "Using commonly accepted words and phrases (i.e. those used by academics and reliable third party sources) is not original research." However, interpreting what somebody says and then putting that into different language is OR (and a few other bad things). Zaalbar (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MrX - Now we are getting there.

Your para one: The sentence can be easily re worded as you suggest to, "The ACL have lobbied to have biological details included on birth certificates." fine

Para two: "Some of this content simple needs rewording, while some of it should be removed because it consists of trivial events or statements that promote the subject an undue manner." Please be more specific - you might suggest the actual sentences above and their proposed wordings. (but check the Controversy and criticism section as one measure of 'acceptable triviality')

Para three: Will leave that for the time being, other than that is exactly what Andrews said.

Para four: All that is too fuzzy to be useful. Can you be more specific?

Sam56mas (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

@Zaalbar, yes we can can include statements from the subject of the article, usually in their own words, but those statements should not dominate the article per WP:UNDUE. With regard to the how certain phrases like "protecting marriage" are worded, I believe that my views align very well with consensus, not only here, but throughout the encyclopedia.

@Sam56mas, I can't be more specific about the removed text which you copied above, because I was not the one who removed it. If content I remove is not adequately explained in my edit summaries then I'm happy explain further on the talk page.

Regarding my paragraph four, I believe that if your experience on Wikipedia is limited to just this article, or just a few articles, then you are probably going to be limited in your ability to approach this article objectively. You seem to have an inordinate interest in this article to the exclusion of all else, suggesting that you may have a conflict of interest. You may notice that many of the editors who disagree with some of your edits, have edited many other articles on diverse subjects. In other words, they have more experience, and probably understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines better than you do. You may want to consider listening to some of their advice, editing other articles, interacting on other talk pages and perhaps even participating in RfCs, AfDs, RfAs, ANIs, DRNs, etc. It's a great way to learn how Wikipedia works and influence changes to improve the project. - MrX 14:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

MrX Para 1 : I am willing to include the sentence, "to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples" to arrive at a consensus and move on.

Para 2 : With great respect, your sentence is a diversion from the issue - namely assessing the above citations and the proposed sentences and arriving at a consensus. I have carefully explained the background for these re-wording above. Refer EXPLANATION above, specifically relating to this bold edit. I have carefully responded to those issues to arrive at A CONSENSUS BASED ON WIKI P&Gs IS REQUIRED to establish which of the 21 previously deleted citations (and sentences) below, are acceptable.

Para 3 : Another a diversion away from resolving the 'wording issue'. Interestingly, when various elements on this page were assessed at RSN and DRN - in which I participated - editors just ignored the outcomes. (I can again provide proof, but it is all documented on this TP). I believe I know, "how Wikipedia works"

An approach to editing this ACL article is: 1 Editor emerges, 2 Deletes blocks of text, 3 Demands a consensus, 4 But does not say > 'consensus-on-what'? 5 TP discussion then is side-tracked to 'Wikipedia-editors' rather than 'Wikipedia-words.' The above proposed wording, along with the protection-block gives an opportunity for all editors to have their say. Can we now get a consensus on the proposed words and citations above? If there is no further discussion on the words, and with the protection-lock set to expire within the next 24 hours, I suggest the above sentences (with the birth-certificate-sentence modified) and their citations then be re-included in the article. Sam56mas (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sam56mas, you might want to see Wikipedia:Do not say "With all due respect". The above wall of text makes me unwilling to wade into this - the best I can offer is to reinforce the idea of finding secondary sources that folks would not be within policy to remove. Good luck. I will be supportive of addition of appropriately sourced content. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I am with Mr X. This article does correctly identify a range of relevant subject matter, and some sources are good. However there are all sorts of problems with it, around undue weight, weasel words, non-neutral sources, unreliable sources, non-notable information being included, and so forth. One of the things that happens with single purpose account editors such as you Sam, is that you don't get a range of understanding of articles and consensus around the encyclopedia, and it does sometimes appear that you have a COI (you work only on this subject and I don't think I've seen you ever introduce new sources that might be critical of ACL: these are usually strong indicators of possible conflict of interest). Your devotion to the one page often prevents a consensus from emerging because the rest of us don't want to spend all our time here, but you should not think that this means that your views have support. Like Mr X, I encourage you to spend more time elsewhere in the encyclopedia, where you will learn more about how it works, the norms that exist around sourcing etc, and that will make your edits better here as well. I will try and engage with the content here as well, and may alert a few other experienced editors who may wish to do some monitoring here. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

hamiltonstone. Excellent. I look forward to your working on the, 'all sorts of problems, around undue weight, weasel words, non-neutral sources, unreliable sources, non-notable information being included, and so forth'. I also look forward to your engagement of the 'other experienced editors'. Sam56mas (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

parliamentary voting statistics?

The "issues relating to family" section lists the votes in parliament for and against the same- sex- marraige bill. I can't see the relevance of listing each in the article- if there is relevance, perhaps a reference to an article telling us why it is relevant would be better. Is there some historic discussion about this that someone could direct me to? I'm not wanting to remove content without discussion- this appears to be a contentious article. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It has nothing really to do with the subject of the article and is excessively detailed. - MrX 14:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

When Sam56mas originally added that information to the article I protested on the grounds it was not relevant to be in this article. His reply can currently be found in Archive 2, but here is the gist of it: "I would have thought it is not unreasonable to mention the parliamentary votes - as the Same Sex Marriage 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." In my reply I conceded to let the information remain, partly because in my opinion there were more important things to debate at the time. I don't feel strongly about keeping or removing the votes, just thought I would reply to your request for previous discussion on this issue. Freikorp (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism?

I can't see why this article has a section on "Controversy and criticism". surely all these issues could be included under the general banner of "lobbying issues". Obviously, some will be more popular with some readers than others- but it would be more neutral to think of each in these terms, rather than focusing on the controversy of them. See also wp:crit Will cork on this if no one else does, and if no one objects WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I have just renamed the "Same-sex marriage" section, since it was broader than just that. But it's also much broader than just criticism the ACL has received. StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a re-structuring proposal that you can see if you scroll about 2/3 the way up the page. Others have made similar proposals. Good luck to you if you can make any strides in that direction without invoking a text-wall of protest by editors who probably work for the ACL, and the inevitable edit war, followed by the inevitable locking and blocking.

...but you have my support. - MrX 22:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fair, I have no objections to this proposal. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I (very belatedly) agree. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nathan Campbell- notable? relevant? second opinion, please

I'm inclined to think that the following sentence is not all that notable, and can be deleted. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise- could I have some opinions please?

Nathan Cambell, a Christian and student at Queensland Theological College wrote an open letter to Jim Wallace in response to his comments which noted Anders Behring Breivik's use of a computer game for training. Cambell accused Jim Wallace of trying to capitalise on the tragedy for political gain, and criticised Wallace's decision to condemn a video game rather than the perpetrator who identified himself as a Christian.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The following paragraph used to appear in the article:

• "Jim Wallace, ACL Managing Director and former SAS Commander, was called as an expert witness to a Standing Committee of States and Commonwealth Attorneys-General, reviewing classifications. The meeting was shown a, "selection of clips from various games to provide examples of the levels of violence and sexual content." One of those computer games was Modern Warfare 2. Jim Wallace told the committee that, "the games industry maintains it's just a game. It seems Anders Behring Breivik is smarter than that. In one of his blogs he said: "I see Modern Warfare 2 more as part of my training simulation than anything else". During his trial Breivik told how he played these video games, for over a year, around 16 hours a day, to hone his gun and targeting skills.

I thought the above paragraph paragraph was undue weight, so I added the information about Nathan Campbell's open letter in an attempt to balance the article out. Now that Jim wallace's over-detailed opinions on this matter are no longer in the article it is certainly less relevant to have Campbell's opinion remain there. The only reason I see for keeping it now is that it is an interesting reflection of how other Christians view the ACL, which could be argued to be notable. Just for the record I don't think Nathan Campbell's letter is notable itself, I think it is notable that the letter was reported on by a source that is notable enough to have its own wikipedia article. So I guess my vote is a weak keep, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if consensus rules that it should be removed. Freikorp (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. It's not notable unless it received broader coverage in the press. Also, it really doesn't help readers understand the ACL from an encyclopedic point of view. - MrX 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And I also believe it is not notable - I was thinking about it a few days ago. So I went ahead and removed it now. Unfortunately, User:WotherspoonSmith forgot to add a signature, so I thought User:Freikorp was saying "delete", but I see now that Freikorp went for "weak keep"... StAnselm (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

my apologies- I have gone back and signed my post. (It was one of those late night, battery going flat situations, where I thought the sinebot would fix it before I was back on line)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A student's opinion > not notable. His stated opinion > debatable. Breivik as a Christian > ludicrous. The two WP:UNDUE sentences > not at all encyclopaedic. Delete. Sam56mas (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion on keeping or removing the sentence is welcome, but at least get your facts straight. Breivik own wikipedia article cite his religion as Christianity (Church of Norway), with references. His manifesto specifically states he is "100 percent Christian". Nathan Campbells comments that Breivik "claimed to be acting as a Christian" is as far from ludicrous as you could possibly get. Freikorp (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it myself. I'm not going to fight for it to remain considering the only reason I added it in the first place (above mentioned paragraph) has already been removed. Freikorp (talk) 03:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Jim Wallace (Australia)

If you're editing this article you probably have an interest in its subject, and accordingly its managing director, Jim Wallace. Since this article now has many editors I just thought I'd bring your attention to the Jim Wallace article, which has considerably fewer editors. Up until today it also had zero criticism. Not only that it specifically mentioned comments Wallace made that attracted heavy criticism, but did not add any of the criticism itself - just Wallace's comments. This article was one of the most biased things I have ever seen on wikipedia.

I've attempted to add some of Wallace's criticism to the article. I've done so by 'main article' linking to the controversy section here. I'm not sure if that is the most appropriate thing to do, but to me it seemed more practical than simply copying and pasting the controversy from this article into that one. Your opinions on that article are very welcome. Freikorp (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, The difficulty for me in that article is separating Wallace's viewpoints and public statements from those of the ACL, who he is usually (presumably) representing when he makes public statements. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Second opinions requested- same sex marriage/ Committee for the Preservation of Marriage deletion?

I've recently shortened a section of the same sex marriage section, citing undue weight. On closer inspection, that might not technically be the right policy to be quoting. My main motivation is to keep this an article about ACL, not a wp:soapbox for all the opinions of the ACL (or their opponents) every time they have been made.

On that note, I'd like people's opinion on the preceding paragraph, ie A document endorsing marriage between a man and a woman was prepared by the Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, under the auspices of the Committee for the Preservation of Marriage, of which the ACL is a member. The document was endorsed by 50 of the national denominational church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Lutheran, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist Church and Uniting Church. The document, which was circulated to politicians, stated that "the preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is therefore not of special or limited interest, but serves the common good, particularly the good of children".
I personally don't think it adds anything new to the article- it restates their opinion and stance, in the words of a different organisation of which ACL is simply one of many members- but would like a consensus before deleting or editing it.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it just restates their stance. If the ACL had of prepared this document themselves that would probably make it notable for inclusion, but since they are just a member of a committee that was involved in its preparation, I don't think it belongs here. It would belong at an article specifically dedicated to discussing support and/or opposition to same-sex marriage. Freikorp (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be omitted. I had difficulty editing around that section a few days ago, knowing that the source was little more than a press release crafted by an ad hoc group of which the ACL was a member. I would be much more interested in press coverage about the reaction (if any) to the document when it was presented to the senate committee. - MrX 00:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

More correctly the paragraph should read: A document endorsing marriage between a man and a woman was prepared by a group of well qualified persons from the Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian Churches, who came together under the auspices of the Australian Christian Lobby. [refer citation - with four people listed] Within the Wikipedia article, ACL is described variously as, "extremist Christians", "ACL likes to think they represent all Christians, they do not by any stretch of the imagination", "the ACL do not represent all people of Christian faith", "Wallace's comments were condemned by . . . as well as other Christian leaders", "a group of Australian Christians started an online petition stating that the ACL does not represent their views". As well as the important information it contains, the paragraph (with its citation) shows there is 'Christian' support for ACL, and provides a balance to that negativity. Suggest it also provides an insight into the Senate SSM outcome - along with ACL's involvement with the churches, lobbying on the matter. Suggest reword and shorten. Sam56mas (talk) 02:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That repositions the "Committee for the Preservation of Marriage" as a body auspiced by ACL (not a body that ACL is a member of). I've googled unsuccessfully to find anything on the committee other than this document, and a reference or two of Jim Wallace chairing the committee- so it appears a little more relevant in that light.

As you've stated, it is one example where ACL (through a proxy committee) shows it has the support of many churches on this issue.

so the noteworthiness of the paragraph to this article is that it is another example/ method ACL has used to lobby government- this time with the support of many others. Thus rephrased, I'd think it should stay,with a bit tighter grammar, saying

The ACL auspiced the interdenominational "Committee for the Preservation of Marriage", which prepared and distributed to politicians a document stating that "the preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not of special or limited interest, but serves the common good, particularly the good of children." It was endorsed by by 50 denominational church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Lutheran, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventist Church and Uniting Church.

(As a side note, re:Suggest it also provides an insight into the Senate SSM outcome - along with ACL's involvement with the churches, lobbying on the matter this sounds like we'd be inferring ACL has caused/ influenced the Senate outcome- I'm not happy with us doing that. If we find secondary sources saying "ACL caused/ influenced the Senate outcome" that would be different, but we don't do our own original research leading people to conclusions we draw ourelves.)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A few comments. First of all, this all appears to be based on a media released tabled during a hearing of the senate committee inquiry. The release does not indicate ACL has a special position amongst this group of signatories, and as such I would say this does not belong here at all. Second, in terms of reliability, i'm not sure we should be relying on an own-sourced media release unless it was reported by reliable sources (though that would also depend on the quality of the reporting). But overwhelmingly my reaction to this entire section (not just this paragraph) is WP:NOT#NEWS and concern over imbalance and recentism. The seven paras should be cut to about two. This is just one round in a longer debate about marriage laws etc (for example, there have been three senate committee inquiries just in the last few years, IIRC). Get rid of the para being discussed above altogether. All that it warrants is part of a broader sentence along the lines "During the debate on the issue, the ACL collaborated with some churches in producing a joint "[whatever it was called]". That's all that's needed. Get rid of whole para beginning "On 4 May 2012..." Also get rid of the 'duelling petitions' para. One sentence is needed, perhaps adjacent to the one I've just suggested: "ACL and GetUp were involved in preparing petitions opposing and supporting the proposals respectively, attracting over 100 000 signatures in both cases." The current level of detail distorts the article and the significance of events. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamiltonstone I agree with you. Does anyone object to these suggested changes? Freikorp (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not necessarily disagree with the above proposal by hamiltonstone. However before making any proposed editing changes / reductions keep in mind the issue of SSM has been of obvious significance over recent years. ACL was heavily involved.

In terms of overall balance - the entry currently contains seven (I missed two in the list above) variations of 'ACL does not represent Christians'. With no balancing ACL support. Largely it is related to Australian media focussing on controversy. XXX doing some worthy thing, or YYY supporting ZZZ, does not 'sell'. In the above proposal, the very significant denominational support for ACL is to be converted to 'collaborated with some churches'.

Further in terms of balance, McClelland is correct when he said, "protesters would not have recognised that the ACL had supported amendments to 84 pieces of commonwealth legislation that removed discrimination against same-sex couples". A lot of the ACL article focuses on SSM and Surrogacy-type issues (even noted in the intro). Are those 85 & 86 ?

Considering how Wendy Francis has been twice attacked on this Wiki entry (which says a lot about those who have done the attacking), I thought it was interesting that the para:

Following a conversation with Wendy Francis of ACL, Chad St. James, Brisbane Editor of Same Same said, "While the two of us did not agree eye to eye on everything, my coffee chat with Wendy did show me another side of the marriage equality debate and why it is so important to exchange polite dialogue with the other side of it."

was deleted.

If Same-sex marriage, "should be cut to about two" paras, that would make it one para shorter than the Adshel advertisements (a trivial issue [sort of] involving ACL). The entire Nazi inferences para is a beat-up. Probably Wallace should not have used the words 'Joseph Goebbels' but (I believe) people understand the point he was making. Similarly the Anzac Day 2011 para - detailing tweets and internet petitions, with "over 250 signatures". Don't forget the Intro / History section remains as-mangled by an one of those earlier shock-and-awe editors. And the editing-down of the para, "On 19 September 2012" has left just "the Bill" - what bill ?

I believe it is true to say the majority of the editors of the ACL Wiki entry are not supportive (of most of the activities) of ACL. I am supportive (of most of the activities) of ACL. Editing may, or may not, reflect POVs. I do not think the current Wikipedia entry mirrors the support ACL has in the wider community.

I am pleased editors are now discussing proposed Wikipedia changes rather than, in was in the case in the past (with other editors), continually breaking Wiki P&Gs to force their own way - refer Talk Page above. I fully believe Wikipedia readers make up their own minds about any content within Wikipedia. Sam56mas (talk) 23:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

RE:I believe it is true to say the majority of the editors of the ACL Wiki entry are not supportive (of most of the activities) of ACL. Not true. I'm ambivalent- which is why i came here. I choose not to edit articles on topics I feel srtongly about, to maintain wp:npov. It's a good practice- you should try it.

Re: balance. I think we need to keep in mind that 'balance' is not about having equal parts of both sides- it is about balancing the article with sections proportional to their importance. Same Sex Marriage has been a huge part of ACL's lobbying efforts, it should be a significant part of the article.

yes, there a lots of complaints form other Christians that ACL doesn't represent them. There are lots of issues in the article overall. I'm trying to keep with something I read upthread about 'dealing with one issue at a time'. I'll make a point of getting back to that, ok? (just as I/we will get back to the paragraphs on the senate/ house of rep's submissions, now that I see that it's contentious. and, I guess, the Wendy Francis quote, Nazi quote, Anzac day bit etc if they hasn't reached consensus.)WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: The release does not indicate ACL has a special position amongst this group of signatories, and as such I would say this does not belong here at all. I disagree somewhat: Sam56mas's statement of who came together under the auspices of the Australian Christian Lobby line was a direct quote from the document. I searched and found one other reference (admittedly, an interview on ACL's website) which referred to Jim Wallace as "sort of the chair of the group", both of which, to my mind, changes ACL's status in this group. The committee doesn't seem to exist in any other form or for any other purpose, I think it would be fair to say it was another strategy of the ACL. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, and will email the Presbyterian minister whose name is on the submission to ask his opinion on ACL's status in the group. I'm hoping this doesn't cross any wp:or. (the reply won't be quoted directly). Does this sound like a fair solution to everyone? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems fair.

I've been trying to convince Sam56mas for quite some time now that balance doesn't mean 50% of this article should support the ACL and 50% should oppose it, i've brought the issue up on several occasions. I'm not sure what part of that he doesn't understand. I think each section should be directly proportional in size to the amount of media coverage the issue generated. 'Importance' is a matter of opinion, for example I honestly think the persecution of Christians in Egypt, which the ACL has lobbied against, is more important than the ACL's undeniably homophobic but nevertheless trivial attempt to ban ads featuring gay people. But the Adshell controversy generated a plethora of news coverage in the mainstream media, whereas the persecution Christians in Egypt did not. The issue wasn't only reported on initially, newspapers kept updating on the story over several days as new facts emerged. The media think the Adshell issue is important, and therefore it is a important reflection of how the ACL is perceived in the society in which it is active. Accordingly I think it should have a larger section in the article. I could quite easily add at least another half dozen references for that section, and I might just do that if attempts to shorten it are proposed. Freikorp (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Having exchanged emails, I now think it is quite accurate to describe the Committee as auspiced by the ACL, rather than saying that the ACL is 'just another member'. On that note, it seems fair to me to include this section giving that amount of credit to the ACL. Do people agree? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK on the auspicing, assuming no sources are found that contradict that position. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't have strong objection to using the word auspicing, although a strict interpretation of policy suggests that it could be challenged in the future as original research. A look at the policy may be helpful

Policy regarding primary sources (emphasis added)

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:BLPPRIMARY, which is policy.

I still believe that the content in question lacks notability and should be excluded altogether because it lacks secondary sourcing. At a minimum, it should be summarized, for example

The ACL and several church leaders made a joint appeal to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to exclusively support marriage between a man and a woman.

This should be put in the proper context of reliable source coverage concerning the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010, about which this lobbying activity relates. - MrX 13:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded the section on the committee.

Just to clarify a few points (for the record): I have not conducted original research, I have confirmed the contents of the report tabled in parliament, which says that ACL auspiced the committee. There are a few subsequent newspaper articles based on that press release, but they often did not word it the same way, so I checked. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

References

same sex marriage section restructure

I have considerably reduced the descriptions of each individual lobbying strategy, but summarised the ACL's position on SSM at the start of the section. I'm sure it can be tweaked, but I think this overall format change is much easier to read, reduces repetition and still retains essential information. Could we agree (or disagree) that this is a better overall layout prior to having mass reversions based on my best guess at the detail? WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like a substantial improvement to me. Thanks for your efforts. - MrX 02:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, good work. I have corrected a minor error (the ACL petition attracted just over 100 000 signatures, not 140 000). Freikorp (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. ACL actually had two petitions, I'd combined numbers from each to reach that figure... It's hard to be brief and still capture the complexities- AFAIK ACL's was an actual petition (paper signatures, able to be submitted to parliament) while GetUp!'s was electronic (a bit more dodgy). I'd need to do some research before I tweaked it's accuracy in that regard. I'm ok with it as is. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the GetUp! petition being online and therefore a bit more dodgy is valid (I'd be happy with a couple words added in specifying one was a paper and one was an online petition), however, the people signing ACL's two petitions probably overlapped considerably, possibly even totally. It's reasonable to assume everyone who signed the first petition ACL organised would have at least wanted to sign the second one, and I think it is also reasonable to assume a large portion of them did. Accordingly I don't think it is fair to combine the two figures. Freikorp (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering Freikorp's concern regarding ACL's figures and the further concerns regarding GetUp!'s dubious 'quality control' for both membership and petition numbers, to try to build an Encyclopedic-case, based on either set of figures, is suspect. Sam56mas (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Further - GetUp! produced a Marriage Equality, YouTube video It's Time. It received overseas coverage.[1] Stephen Fry tweeted a link to the video to his near 3.5 million followers.[2] It's Time has now been viewed 6.9 million times - world wide. This GetUp! video concludes with a plea that, It's Time to end marriage discrimination and a link to the GetUp!'s petition at[3] - the same petition (noted) with its 140,000 votes, competing with the ACL's (Australian & paper) petition(s). Specifically - There was an ACL petition containing 52,000 signatures presented to the Senate in September 2011.[4] There was a new / second petition - "To the delegates of the 2011 Labor National Conference"[5] - with 100,000 signatures presented on 1 December 2011. [6] (total 152,000). I think the various marriage-petitions issue is too complex to simply explain and in any case is not particularly notable Sam56mas (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, that is a fair and balanced presentation - good work. Sam56mas (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Education lobbying- BC/ AD- is it noteworthy?

I'm inclined to think that the following paragraph is not noteworthy, and I would like to delete it: ACL has provided input into the formulation of the proposed Australian National Curriculum. ACL lobbied against proposal to replace the terms Before Christ (BC) and Anno Domini (AD) with Before the Common Era (BCE) and Common Era (CE). The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority later stated they would change the explanatory material to specify the BC and AD should still be taught as well as CE and BCE.. Would like confirmation that others feel the same. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

References

I'm inclined to think it is noteworthy. Sam56mas (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would lean toward thinking it's somewhat notable. The first source is an ACL creation (primary source), the second is a radio broadcast and the third looks like it was a wire service story(?). It doesn't make an extraordinary claim, and it's relatively brief, so I see no harm in keeping it. - MrX 02:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Two questions

1 What does a GetUp! petition have to do with ACL ? If you think it is important here, please demonstrate by de-weaselling the sentence and adding it to the GetUp! Wikipedia page.

2 If Jim Wallace is Optimus Prime Geoff Lemon ABC [7] is an acceptable opinion piece, why is this not ? Gays must curb vile vitriol Miranda Devine Herald Sun [8] ? Sam56mas (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Isn't it obvious? Firstly the GetUp! petition was created in response to the ACL petition. Secondly media sources compared the two petitions as signatures were being collected. [9][10] Furthermore the GetUp! petition is actually mentioned in the same reference that was added to this article to back up the first ACL petition statement. [11] The article used to state the getup petition was created in response to the ACL petition, but as you know that paragraph has been shortened and simplified.

2. I never said the Miranda Devine opinion piece wasn't acceptable, so someone else will have to answer that one for you. Freikorp (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Freikorp answered #1. It seems fairly obvious from reading the article content and the sources behind the content.

As concerns the Miranda Devine opinion piece: it would depend on how it was used. Context matters. Can you provide the proposed text that would be supported by that source? - MrX 03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm a bit confused by your use of "de-weaselling"- I can't see any WP:WEASEL words being used, but you may be using the term in a different way. Either way, I agree with Freikorp- it is relevant. We've discussed within the last week the issues with that sentence and a perfect alternative summary hasn't been written yet, but you're welcome to suggest one. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As "over 100,000 signatures" and "over 140,000" very much oversimplifies a complex situation. > Weasel WP:OR numbers (From the citations > 152,000 & 140,000+ refer discussion above). As there are serious concerns (for differing reasons) regarding the numbers on both petitions. As GetUp! Wiki-editors did not think the SSM petitions matter was notable. As the voting numbers have been removed from the Parliamentary voting. As it is not possible to adequately explain the situation in a short para, let alone in a sentence. As I don't understand the significance of which organisation started which petition first. The sentence should read simply: ACL and GetUp! were involved in preparing petitions opposing and supporting the proposals respectively.[44][45][46][47] Sam56mas (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

2. Again, like Freikorp, I think it's quite possible that it isn't- I haven't looked at it yet. I did delete one link to the optimus prime article just last night on the basis that it was not an acceptable opinion piece in that context, and may get around to deleting the other. It might get deleted by any of us and, if there are objections, we'll discuss it here.WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The sentence, Writing in the Herald Sun, journalist Miranda Devine has said that Jim Wallace, "has copped more than his fair share of abuse when it comes to defending traditional marriage" was removed at least four times, with little or no explanation on:

• 01:16, 8 December 2012
• 11:41, 10 November 2012
• 22:20, 6 November 2012
• 14:06, 4 November 2012

Up until 10 Nov it was reverted with TP and edit summaries.

The, Jim Wallace is Optimus Prime Geoff Lemon opinion piece has never been touched. Sam56mas (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Without doubt, there will be sections of this article that haven't reached consensus for another month or so- you have just listed a couple (in, I must say, language that seems quite aggressive). This is the way it has to be, if we are to work cooperatively on improving the article, one issue at a time, as has been requested above by various editors including yourself. It will not magically become acceptable without some discussion, which takes time. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

_{I have added my signature so each paragraph of my comments above can be distinguished from others'- please just add comments to the bottom of the discussion on each section. BTW, If each section only discussed one issue at a time, that would make it even easier to follow. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)}

1. I'm ok with your suggested revision of the petitions section.

2. Generally, opinion pieces are not encyclopaedic, so it is entirely appropriate that Miranda's quote is removed. As stated above, the Geoff Lemon piece was quoted twice, now only once. I'll delete the second link to it now that you have drawn my attention to it if you like.

(as someone who hasn't trawled through all the writings of the past months, I'm finding it hard to understand your questions in context. Could you explain them a little clearer in future, please?) WotherspoonSmith (talk) 08:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

WotherspoonSmith - Firstly, the ACL article has been significantly improved with your editing. Thank you for the message on my Talk Page and yes I would be very pleased to deal with one issue at a time. However the editing on this site has in the past been chaotic. Please refer to points 2 and 3 below.

1 With the Miranda Devine Opinion piece being deemed as not acceptable, and with the Geoff Lemon Opinion piece now removed - other Opinion pieces in the article should be examined in the future.

2 You said [deal with] "one issue at a time, as has been requested above by various editors including yourself". I have said to Mr X, "take things one step at time and firstly resolve the matter under discussion". Sam56mas(talk) 04:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC) (now in archive two) Then read the next two responses. On this, I agreed with you. MrX advocates the alternative. I accepted his ruling.

3 On the matter of context for questions - fine however, the problem I have had is that at times Wiki-conforming material is crudely and boldly deleted - and no matter how I explain - it is often met with more unexplained deletions (and even substitution with Wiki-non-conforming material) leaving a stack of content for me to deal with, and with other new editors demanding bulk explanations and consensus. With 26 posts signed Sam56mas (refer to my detailed explanations above the signatures) on this non-archived Talk Page (alone), no-one can say I have not been explaining what I am proposing. Similarly, my edit summaries are usually detailed. Others seem to be able to delete, or add, with little or no justification. Again, I would be very pleased to deal with one issue at a time. I expect others also to adhere to this reasonable requirement. Sam56mas (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So, anyway.. 2. I think we've resolved issue 2- opinion pieces are not acceptable sources of facts in Wikipedia, they are only a source of someone's opinion, and must be notable for inclusion. I think it is fair to say that anyone can state an opinion, that doesn't mean it has to be reproduced here. 1. Does anyone object to Sam56mas's suggestion of the petition section being reduced to:
ACL and GetUp! were involved in preparing petitions opposing and supporting the proposals respectively.[44][45][46][47]
It seems a little simplistic for a complex, notable issue to me, but I'm happy to bow to consensus. Does anyone have an alternative they'd prefer, or will we go with this version?WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind that solution. The advantage of the version i proposed a while back, with the added phrase referring to them both attracting over 100K singatures, was simply to give the reader a ballpark indication of the scope of interest (petitions come to parliament with as few as half a dozen signatures; other public petitions might have a million - i just thought it a good idea to place this roughly on a continuum). But if any characterisation of numbers is too contentious, then willing to run with Sam's latest suggestion. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)