Jump to content

Talk:Australian Christian Lobby/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Two more questions

Why are these three opinion pieces (from the ABC citation, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') [1] acceptable, while this Miranda Devine (from the Herald Sun, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') one [2] is not ? Did we not just agree that, "opinion pieces are not acceptable sources of facts in Wikipedia" ? Sam56mas (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify- that was my 'off the top of my head' summary of the official policy, which is at WP:OPINION.
Personally, I seriously do not want to start a new discussion on which citations are opinions and which we accept until we have concluded the discussion we'd started already. Otherwise, we'll be back in the earlier cycle of neverending lists of issues, all being attacked/ discussed at once- we come close to resolving one issue, and two more distractions are piled on top of it, so it never gets finalised. This is not an official Wikipedia policy, it's just the only solution to the jumbled mess of discussions that have dominated this talk page in recent months that I can see. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, when I removed an ABC opinion piece, I thought the issue was resolved as you had said, (1) "I think we've resolved issue 2 - opinion pieces are not acceptable sources of facts in Wikipedia" and (2) you removed an ABC opinion piece [3], keeping in mind a day earlier you had also removed another ABC opinion piece. [4] Again sorry - I am happy to progressively work to your timing. Sam56mas (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not news

Just a note that picks up an issue that was raised in earlier discussions about the structuring of this page. The article shouldn't reflect things that may be transiently newsworthy but not of long-term significance to the article subject. I just removed a recently-inserted example of this, where the newspaper report quoted ACL's reaction to something Exit international were going to present/discuss at an event in Hobart designed to coincide with parliamentary debate on Euthanasia. My view is that material like this is a couple of steps removed from being important to the article subject (the ACL itself), notwithstanding it reflects ACL's views. The way it was inserted also didn't quite reflect the source. But that was not my main reason for deleting it (that would have been a reason to reword it, if it had been the only issue). Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

...and then the same editor re-inserted a new version of the same material, without discussion at the talk page. I have left a comment on his talk page, but if other editors wish to weigh in on the subject, please do. Euthenasia laws regularly get debated around the country and regularly fail to be advanced. This appears an inappropriate use of a transient news story to introduce ACL's views, as well as then tacking on an even less relevant bit about the latest bit of Nietschke publicity. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree that at this point this is just a passing news story, which does not deserve any attention for this wikipedia article, as per WP:Notnews. I also can't help but think that this is simply being added so that the ACL can have an opportunity to voice their opinions, and criticise Nietschke's efforts at the same time. I thought we were all in agreement to cease turning this article into a comprehensive account of everything the ACL have ever commented on, and every single time they have been criticised. I'm confused as to why this has started again, especially over an issue that has, relatively speaking, attracted little mainstream coverage of the ACL's opinions on the matter. Freikorp (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Tasmania possibly becoming the first state legalising euthanasia - it is a POV that, "In simple terms: it isn't important enough to be included here." If I was an elderly person living in Tasmania (even Australia) it would be important to me. "Something that is a proposal" - for/against which ACL is lobbying should not exclude it within Wikipedia. (eg SSM and a stack more issues within this ACL WP entry). As for Philip Nitschke's mobile medically assisted suicide clinic - that initiative is not a proposal - he was to set it up in Hobart. (BTW I used another citation describing that initiative). But fine if you want to remove Nitschke, remove him. Sam56mas (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on the Nietschke bit. The source says "Exit International director Phillip Nitschke wants Tasmania to have Australia's first mobile medically assisted suicide clinic if the state's euthanasia laws are changed". He was not "going to set it up in Hobart" - he wanted such a system. But, as with all his publicity, in all of Australia, he can't do it, because it isn't legal. Going back to the other item, I agree with Freikorp that the article is full of stuff that probably should not be included, it is just that editors here haven't been able to agree on a way forward to edit it down to an article more tightly focussed on the article's subject, ACL. So arguing "SSM and a stack more issues...etc" isn't a supporting point. The inserted text seems to me to violate several principles. First is that we aren't a crystal ball. The premise for the sentences is "New laws are expected to be debated in the Tasmanian Parliament which would make Tasmania the first Australian state to sanction euthanasia". Not actually debated. Not actually passed. This appears to be passing in to a realm of speculation. Second, we are not a newspaper, and the sentences also seem to breach this principle: a news article reports a possible/proposed action and WP includes an opinion about it from ACL, reported in the news. I don't think this is in the spirit of not being a newspaper. However, even if both these points were not relevant, there is still the fundamental issue of whether it is sufficiently relevant, not to the subject of euthanasia, but to the subject of ACL. I do not think it meets that need, even if it did not fall foul of not being a crystal ball, and not being a newspaper. I think the issue is well encapsulated in your own words in your post, Sam, when you say "If I was an elderly person living in Tasmania (even Australia) it would be important to me." - yes, it would, but you have unwittingly proved my poin, because "it" in that sentence is euthanasia / euthanasia law, whereas the "it" for this article is ACL. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
ACL is a "socially conservative lobbying organisation". It lobbies on behalf others, including the elderly. This WP article, intended to characterise ACL, describes some of its various lobbying activities.
Incidentally, I found this paper on its website: <http://www.acl.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/130315-ACL-Submission-to-the-Consultation-Paper-on-Voluntary-Assisted-Dying.pdf> Sam56mas (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
* In relation to my Talk Page where Hamiltonstone raised a concern regarding the, "remove sentence which was duplicated below":
In version 547881201
- the wording in the first para > "The organisation was founded in 1995 as the Australian Christian Coalition by John Gagliardi"
- the wording in the second para > "The Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) was founded in 1995 by John Gagliardi"
That's the duplication to which I referred - and fixed(?)
Put those introductory sentences back the way they were if you prefer.Sam56mas (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
* In relation to Hamiltonstone's issues above - The source used [url=http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2013/03/20/375022_tasmania-news.html] says: "A mobile medically assisted suicide clinic and new ways of obtaining a peaceful death will be unveiled in Hobart." The current ACL WP words are: "ACL expressed further concern that Philip Nitschke intended to unveil a mobile medically assisted suicide clinic in Hobart". It seems most lobby groups lobby for / against issues 'before' - rather than 'after' they are legalised. Sam56mas (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
My view about the inclusion of all this material hasn't changed, but I'm waiting hoping some other experienced editors may express a view. If a source talks nonsense, we shouldn't parrot it. Obviously as euthanasia is illegal, Nitschke can't unveil a mobile MAS clinic. He could unveil his proposal for one, which I expect is what the journalist meant. But all that is a sideshow to the core problem. This is transient news that should not be in an article on ACL. If WP had an article Euthanasia in Tasmania then maybe some version of the text might belong there, but not here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the material should be excluded, especially the sentence about the mobile suicide clinic, which is sensationalistic. Until now, I was on the fence about ACL's comments on the proposed laws. In my view, the threshold for inclusion on these types of news items should be coverage by at least 2-3 news organizations (no blogs; no churches; no letters; no PDFs; no opinion pieces; no press releases; no pontification).
If we can agree that this is an encyclopedia article and not a news blog or an ACL newslettter, I think this article will be much more informative to our readers. As far as that goes, I think the article still needs to be substantially condensed. - MrX 13:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In Australia, it is in the small jurisdictions where euthanasia legislation is initiated. ACL lobbies in the states on many issues (refer <http://www.acl.org.au/media/acl-in-the-media/>). ACL has state offices. Tasmania and Darwin have but one newspaper each. The test for WP citation-acceptability is WP:RS. As I have said - "if you want to remove Nitschke, remove him". Sam56mas (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Nitschke reference should go - it is tangential to the main issue, which is the proposed Tasmanian euthanasia legislation. But I think that the sentences about the proposed Tasmanian laws and the ACL's reaction should be included. These sentences demonstrate not only an issue that the ACL lobbies on, but also a strategic issue faced by the ACL in this case, i.e., the ACL complaint of submissions being called for the proposal rather than on the issue of euthanasia itself. This information provides an example of the nature of the political environment in which the ACL sometimes operates and how the ACL conducts its activities. This improves this WP entry by providing more detail to a reader about the ACL's lobbying activities.Ockham's Sword (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I have addressed the above, following MrX's comment about condensing material, and the consensus re Nietschke, by removing the last par. There is an earlier para that refers to lobbying against euthanasia in various jurisdictions, and I retained the Mercury news item as an additional reference to that statement. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of Jim Wallace tweet

"members of the public"
Is a broad sweeping statement without factual evidence
There is no subsequent balance or context
"A group of Australian Christians"
There are millions, which group?
How is a segment of 250 people form a public narrative?
All questions I would like answered in the sake of fairness.....

User Greenmixa posted the proceeding comment on my talk page. As their edit has been contested by other editors and as criticism and support of ACL actions has been a long contested debate at this article I am moving their conversation here.

In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users, who responded with statements such as "Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby should be ashamed, using ANZAC day to push a homophobic and racist agenda."" I would be more than happy to flesh out the criticism back to its original size if that helps clarify 'criticism from members of the public' to the reader.

The group of Australia Christians who cirticised Wallace specifically did not have a denomination at the time of the petition launch, as they were reportedly against organised Christianity. Perhaps we can reword what is currently written to something more like "A petition was started encouraging Australian Christians to state that the ACL does not represent their views" for clarity.

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking regarding the 250 people signing the petition. If you're questioning why a petition with relatively few signers has ben included, the reason it has been included is that it has the time frame - "within the first 24 hours", which gives the reader an idea of how many of Jim Wallace's twitter followers were immediately angered by his comments. As with any data in an article about an organisation, it is designed to give a neutral reader information on what the organisation does and how people responds to their actions. Freikorp (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've noticed others not happy about this edit and they have been quickly over turned. I have to wonder how such broad language has passed in the first instance. Of the 14 editors all contributions seem to be fiercely irreligious, for the sake of fairness and the benefit of the community I would ask these portions be re-removed.

For those anti ACL contributors I would say this, that if a completely accurate portrayal of a person or situation is not given then formal responses cant be determined especially by those that may in the future like to voice their opinions against him.

To the substance as given above by User:Freikorp"In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users"

The premise of the argument is invalid as the subjective 'public' cannot be identified through any means let alone twiter all of which forms a highly irregular POV. There is no national consensus legally possible outside a regulated election environment.

If the subsequent 'group' are from no denomination and cannot be identified then how does it form such a heavy part of the opinion within this article. In like manner we could gauge qualified support at the time from their facebook entry if some would please?

Once again twitter followers are not reflective of neutral information, any unregulated information gathering can be manipulated for political ends, especially in consideration of public stats in approaching hastags that explains one side of politics using the platform by a factor of almost 50%

Happy to continue these points with others.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmixa (talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Greenmixa and have written Freikorp privately too ...

Very happy to review any further POV sources from faith based organisations. The star observer is a free publication run by volunteer staff which should not be used in controversial sub topics. Happy to review them all one by one, starting with the removal of this bias and quite frankly amateur indulgence.

It does ideologues no favors to include it because it will cause many to identify and turn away from further reading. Joshuacohen1 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Please wait to for Consensus to be reached instead of making repeated edits that you know very well will be contested. The 'twitter' uses and the non-denominationl Christian group are not-notable entities on their own - nobody is debating that. The twitter comments and the non-demoniational Christians actions are notable because their actions have been reported on by established sources and the reported comments/actions are relative to the topic of this article. If I tweet "The ACL is out of touch with Australian Christians" right now my actions alone are not notable to be included in an encyclopaedia, however if the ACL did something controversial, and then the media reported that I tweeted that and that many other people tweeted things like it, then we could be able to look at adding it to the article. Also I suggest you do some research regarding editors of this page - the only editor of this page who has even been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalising it page is a pro-ACL editor. All the editors of this page are not "fiercely irreligious", some are fiercely pro-ACL, and some are neutral. Freikorp (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Freikorp for the background info;

In line with Aus public service standards comments should be stood down when so blatant in their error. Aside from this the pov breaches wiki guidelines and further Legally the language is contemptible in consideration of what is implied by such a broad statement of "members of the public"

Consensus on such obvious matters reeks of an ideological hangup. If as a longtime wiki contributor you can't see this then we should immediately move forward onto a more formal dispute resolution without the filibuster which abets a social injustice.

In the argument of 'Reporting an established source' can you provide evidence to where your words or words most similar were used to imply electorates had reached a national consensus by implication of the use of these words....

"members of the public"

"A group of Australian Christians"

Joshuacohen1 (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've found this article in The Sydney Morning Herald which specifically states "Wallace was heavily criticised on Twitter for his comments." [5] In order to address your concern, I will immediately change "Wallace's comments were condemned by members of the public" to "Wallace was heavily criticised on Twitter for his comments", which is exactly what the reference states. Even though I personally don't see the point I am also rewording the other sentence to address your concern. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that small amendment while I appreciate your efforts for further accuracy I'm not sure it will adequately satisfy others. Joshuacohen1 (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Which others? The other edit warring single purpose accounts that led to this article being semi-protected? I am certainly happy with Freikorp's work that I have seen. I agree that there needs to be caution in the use of Sydney Star Observer material. I have no idea why you are referring to "Aus public service standards": please elaborate. Your comment about "amateur indulgence" manages to be both rude and nonsensical. Rude, in that it deprecates experienced editors, and nonsensical, because all editors at Wikipedia are amateurs, in the sense of volunteers. If you wish to take processes here to dispute resolution, good luck with that. However in the interim Materialscientist has made an initial intervention to help calm things down. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned also elsewhere, with respect to the writer above I've looked at the contribution history and it seems to me that non favourable ACL commentators have maintained a watch over this page in a fivefold manner over many years. The fact that what might be a group of friends becoming aware of this and wanting to return a balance should be welcomed. If you really want a vibrant, fair and tolerant community you will encourage these newbies not accuse them.

In relation to standards spoken of above without a long explanation of current procedure around civil servants, I'd like to say that if an old fashioned philabuster is acceptable on a talk page in this self edited environment then legally contemptible language should be immediately stood down until resolution is complete, not the other way round. This is the model that our current parliament employs. If one should speak of things of a political nature similar principles should apply. What this useful resource is in danger of is having people stop reading the second anything of a controversial nature is presented, diminishing the scope of the community.

Furthermore the 'amateur indulgence' comment is completely reasonable, anyone on any page that employs the language 'members of the public' offers a rhetoric which is a literal impossibility in that its purposefully vague and open for interpretation on an already slopped mountain contextually. At the very least someone has recognised this and made the change. Joshuacohen1 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I really think you're making far too big of a deal over such a small issue. Your bold removal of referenced content was reverted so that discussion could occur, and after you stated your complaint that some language was too vague, it was changed to address your concern. Can we move on now?
Please read WP:Assume good faith. If you think something could be written better, simply say so. Accusing other editors of being "purposefully vague" isn't in good faith. This is a large article written entirely by volunteers. We're not perfect, so naturally sometimes our edits can be improved on. Also if you've looked over this page history you should have noticed that the majority of pro-ACL editors have single purpose accounts. They do not appear to be hear to help wikipedia as a whole, they are simply here to promote the ACL, and they have never denied it. These kind of actions has attracted the attention of editors who are genuinely interested in improving wikipedia, which is probably why these single-purpose accounts were outnumbered. Freikorp (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


Sockpuppets blocked

See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenmixa. 2 of the 3 edit-warring single purpose pro-ACL accounts that we dealt with earlier this month have been banned indefinitely for violating wikipidea policy, with the third receiving a two-week ban. This brings the total number of editors of this article that have been given a ban for violating wikipedia policy to four, all pro-ACL editors and all single-purpose accounts. I wonder if John Miller will acknowledge this if he ever updates or writes another article about debates at this page? I suspect, however, that he will just ignore facts that are inconvenient for his agenda, just like he did last time. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Christian

As an Australian Christian, they do not represent me or ANY of the Christians I know. I really don't believe this article addresses the massive polarization this group has on Christians. In reading this article, it is almost as if they are actually Christian when we would say they are only Labeled as Christian, but as far from Christian as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.226.193 (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

...and yet, quite a few of the isues they raise have specific responses from christians saying that ACL does not represent their views.
I was surprised to learn that they only technically claim to represent their 'supporters', not members nor christians or churches as a whole. this is mentioned in the article at head of para 2 under 'views and lobbying efforts'.
there are a diversity of christians, those you have contact with are clearly not those that ACL represents. If you have sources discussing the massive polarisation of this group, please add it (or link to it here so it con be added by others, if you prefer). If you don't have sources, we can't really mention it. WotherspoonSmith (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

homosexual "lifestyle"?

A recent edit changed the framing of Wallace's comments that led to Gillard pulling out of an ACL event. The wording was changed from homosexuality, to homosexual "lifestyle" (with those quote marks). I have changed it to "homosexual people", because this more closely matches wallace's message (and is also a term he used in the same interview). Although he used the word "lifestyle", that was only on listening to the first sentence of the interview. Listen again at around 0:52 where he talks about the poor outcomes of being a homosexual person - he doesn't use "lifestyle" on that occasion. Also, it is implied that he is talking about sexual orientation rather than "lifestyle", as he uses the term for heterosexuals as well (he contrasts "homosexual lifestyle" with "heterosexual lifestyle"), indicating that the key issue is sexual orientation. That is what the WP article should reflect. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are obviously definitional problems when discussing . . . health issues. Other examples of people (even experts) being confused here: http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/hiv-rates-rise-among-gay-men/story-fneuz9ev-1226743520690 and http://www.nchecrsurveys.unsw.edu.au/spanc/ In this health-context the terms homosexual or gay or homosexual-lifestyle are deemed not appropriate. To clarify, would you recommend men who have sex with men or those engaging in anal sex as the preferred descriptor? Sam56mas (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not following your argument, sam. The article is seeking to characterise Wallace's position, as part of explaining a major incident in ACL's history. This isn't a health issue itself - Wallace was talking about a health issue, but then didn't frame it as such - he talked about lifestyle linking it to sexual orientation, and about homosexuality. What the WP article needs to do is succinctly summarise what position Wallace took that led to Gillard rejecting that position and pulling out of the event. How does the health-related terminological issue you raise fit with that? hamiltonstone (talk) 06:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I also think Jensen is being given undue weight in the article on ACL, as well as being effectively given the opportunity to editorialise about censorship, which seems off topic, and i think that extension of the quote should be reverted. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Without success, I have tried hard to understand what you are saying.
The sequence of events:
In 2012 Wallace, " suggest[ed] a homosexual "lifestyle" was more hazardous to health than smoking ". (refer 'A quote is a quote is a quote' below)
His words of concern were embellished by others :
- Jim Wallace suggested that being homosexual was more hazardous to health than smoking <Current ACL WP - hamiltonstone edit>
and
- ' Smoking healthier than gay marriage ' [says Jim Wallace] http://www.smh.com.au/national/smoking-healthier-than-gay-marriage-20120905-25eca.html
Wallace's view on health-risks is supported by WP:RS evidence. (refer comment above > Sam56mas 05:59, 29 April 2014)
Wallace's view on health-risks is supported by non-RS (quoting RS studies) evidence. http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/unhealthy_notions http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/11212 http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_smokescreen_putting_young_mens_health_at_risk
It is recommended that this 'being-homosexual' hamiltonstone edit be reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=606249280&oldid=606245823
Also, in the light of the obfuscating by others, it is recommended that the 'Jensen sentence' - regarding Wallace's raising of this otherwise unspoken 'significant' matter - remain, as is.Sam56mas (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
We seem mutually not to understand each others edits here! I will try and work out what you are getting at. In the mean time, can you explain what you mean by "the obfuscating by others"? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I can't help but think he's referring to my recent edits. I accepted Sam's edit pointing out that the outdated data was specifically for Wallace's claims regarding life expectancy. This was an oversight on my part. However I have just contested his edit that Crikeys investigation stating that Wallace's comments were "mostly rubbish" were only in relation to his comments on life expectancy. Read the reference. The title of the Crikey source is "Get Fact: do gays have more health problems than smokers? It is specifically investigating all his claims, not just his claim regarding life expectancy. It gives a thorough analysis of all claims, pointing out some have some merit, and some do not, and then concludes with the sentence "Accordingly, we rate Wallace’s claims mostly rubbish." I'm happy to hear the opinions of others, but it seems clear to me that Crikey's assessment of "mostly rubbish" is of Wallace's overall argument, not just one part of it. Freikorp (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Freikorp, I was not thinking about you, or your edits, at all. I was agreeing with Jensen who said, in relation to this matter, "in this country censorship is alive and well." I would express it as, "in this country obfuscation is alive and well." BTW You have raised 'Crikey' and are using it for fact verification. I have to say, I agree with Graeme Bartlett 01:01, 22 June 2010 - I would count it [Crikey.com] as a reference to support Notability but not rely exclusively for fact verification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_36 Further for Crikey to speculate that Wallace's concerns, "are believed to to be based on [some Crikey nominated] data" - then for Crikey to criticise that [Crikey nominated data] is hardly rigorous and definitive science. All leading to a contestable & ambiguous Crikey article conclusion. Sam56mas (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Health-equality achieved through advanced treatments for HIV. Crikey! that is an oxymoron. Sam56mas (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The three sentences, "In relation to life expectancy (through to) mostly rubbish" completely fail the requirements of WP:MEDRS. These three sentences should be deleted. Sam56mas (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Each source should be taken on a case by case basis. Obviously I disagree with you regarding this sources notability. If you think it should be removed, take the source and the contested statements, and present them to WP:RSN in a neutral manner, asking for their opinions on whether the source is notable enough for the specific statements. I will accept whatever the consensus at RSN is. Freikorp (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Jim Wallace doesn't exactly satisfy WP:MEDRS. He is not a medical expert. Evidence he has presented has not been published in any reputable medical or health journal. The only medical professional quoted on the issue in the article, the president of the Australian Medical Association, completely disagrees with Mr Wallace; that should tell you something. If Mr Wallace can be used as a source to make outrageous claims about health, a thorough investigation into his claims from a neutral source is completely appropriate. Freikorp (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote

A quote is a quote is a quote:

"PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will address the Australian Christian Lobby's national conference next month, despite its leader yesterday suggesting a homosexual "lifestyle" was more hazardous to health than smoking. The lobby's managing director, Jim Wallace, made the claim in Tasmania yesterday during a debate on same-sex marriage ... I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health - which it presents when it wants more money for health - are that is has higher rates of drug taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years", he told the audience. "The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke" (per http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pms-gay-smoking-furore-20120905-25ew6.html#ixzz30EU9Ickx) Quis separabit? 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The words Wallace used were modified https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_Christian_Lobby&diff=606249280&oldid=606245823 An WP:OR explanation was given. There is a WP:3O consensus against that modification. The modification has been reverted. Sam56mas (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the evidence on this talk page of your WP:30 explanation. Can you explain that in detail immediately please? As far as I can see, Freikorp and I have one view, Sam and Rms125 have another view, and some of the arguments seem to miss the point, in thinking that this is a debate about whether or not the words are used in the quote. That isn't the point. The question is whether they are accurate words to describe the issue. There are many ways of quoting the source, and no evidence I am seeing shows why this particular approach is to be preferred. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone and Sam56mas had different views on referencing Wallace's comments as per the citation, within Wikipedia. Rms125 provided a WP:3O on the issue. > The issue is now resolved.
As a completely separate issue, Freikorp and Sam56mas have different views on the matter of referencing a non WP:MEDRS citation from Crikey, within Wikipedia. > That issue is still unresolved. Sam56mas (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor phrasing change needed.

Under the heading Same Sex Marriage, several pargraphs down, we have: "In 2011, ACL auspiced a coalition ..."

The Oxford, Merriam-Webter's and Collin's dictionaries at my disposal have all been consulted, and none of them allow for a past-tense verb form of "auspice". This should be one of: sponsored, convened, called, raised, or joined. Not 'auspiced'.

Wayne 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australian Christian Lobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Reminder

This article is not an opportunity for the ACL to document their activities and list their political views. That belongs on their website, not here. I'll be going through this article and removing what doesn't belong.

Anyone seeking further details on the ACL views may contact the ACL. This is an encyclopedia. We want it to provide a concise and comprehensive overview that is readable. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

So the Views and lobbying efforts section needs a complete trim back to a summary paragraph on each topic. Its not appropriate to include detailed analysis, lists of activities or commentary here. For example, many political organisations make submissions. Its not remarkable and of little significance that this organisation made a statement about halal certification in Australia. That doesn't tell me about the organisation. It tells me what they are advocating and that doesn't belong here. Its the same with the "The ACL and churches have said" statements. We also need to cover its reduced influence and bring balance to the article with more critical statements. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think a trim is long overdue. We can keep enough to document their anti-Christian agenda, but we don't need to list every press release they send out. --Pete (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Deakin building

Why does the name of ACL's building Eternity House wikilink to Arthur Stace? JennyOz (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that Eternity House was named after Eternity (graffito), which was written by Arthur Stace. However I think that such a link is not appropriate without:
  • A statement in the article to that effect (which probably does not belong in the lead section)
  • A reference to support that statement
So I've removed the link. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian Christian Lobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere

This is not the place to outline any Christian views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Do not come to Wikipedia and advocate, propagandise or recruit. We don't like self-promotion here either. Its all typed up nicely and explained on this page. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that the material removed is not presented in an encylopedic format. However, given the level of influence exerted by the ACL illustrated by multiple reliable sources there is a need to illustrate that. Paul foord (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion continues at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board#WP:NOT B20097 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion as to what should be in this article belongs here. The project can draw attention to this discussion, but should not be the actual venue for detailed discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOT copied from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#WP:NOT

You must not come to Wikipedia and preach about trivial matters. Wikipedia must never, under any circumstance, be a voice for a particular view. This is why we are so popular with internet users. This is our cardinal rule. Please adhere to our policy. It works best that way.

We do not aim to contain all expression found elsewhere. This isn't anarchy, we have rules. Wikipedia is not here to promote things or make our readers contemplate a topic nor is it a form of personal communication. When this happens, it breaks all of these policies.

This type of editing is extremely poor quality and should be removed immediately. Its just a quote farm - a long list of quotations said about various things. This is trivia because anyone can say anything about anything. There is no value to that information from a referencing (building an encyclopedia) point of view because it is of very little consequence. Its not knowledge on the topic of the article. Its imparting knowledge of what was said about something. That is peripheral, off-topic and too trivial and therefore doesn't belong.

We aren't here to document the activities of any organisation in detail. We provide a summary of information, not little bits and pieces, not lists of activities, political positions or quotes. We don't want to copy and paste what was said about things into Wikipedia, except rarely and with good reason. This is laziness and can be a form of fraud where editors game the system to procure a vehicle or platform for ideological dissemination. When you let this stay it devalues all the other good editing we do. Its makes a mockery of the WikiProject Australia. When editors do this they are displaying a lack mutual respect. Its incivility. Some contributors are unable to constrain themselves from their deeply held religious views. Biased edit histories disprove any notion of neutrality. This editing is not done to improve our encyclopedia. It is done solely for the purpose of showcasing religious views. Help stop the biblethumping and push this dribble away. Please don't underestimate this threat and support me on this. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The article I presume you are referring to is Australian Christian Lobby? If so, then because they are a lobby group it is entirely appropriate that their stance on issues they lobby in regard to is succinctly documented in the article. The usual verifiability via reliable secondary source guidelines still apply. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Please try to think of the wider world. The very same argument could be made for railway stations and what they do. Its not our role to document, record or list what times trains arrive and depart from a station and yet that is the purpose of a train station. We direct our readers to the relevant train authority for that information. Likewise readers wanting to know this group's specific stance at some point in time need to visit their website for that information. We don't track any organisation's views for them. We don't provide that kind of content because its trivial information not belonging in an encyclopedia. How about casinos, shall we list what games are available and what a casino manager thinks of their facilities? The purpose of all companies is to generate profit and yet we don't include lists of annual profit and loss statements. This edit serves no other purposes but to spread religious speech. Someone wishing to inject so many quotes is trying to persuade. We must write objectively without bias. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the correct analogy is the railway (organisation or line), not a single station, and yes we do document major routes and when they run and which stations they service. Similarly the correct analogy for a company is what they produce and where and sometimes also important who-fors, etc., which we do document, which for a lobby group is their stance on issues and who they target. Aoziwe (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
It is a sad reflection on the current state of our editing community in Australia when individual editors have taken up a specific case of misuse of the editing privilege - and no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair on the effort put in to try to present the case and point it out. The possibility of further situations such as these is always there, one only hopes others who have to battle with misuse in what increasingly are singular efforts, are supported more over time. There are probably similar efforts by well meaning editors in less noticeable corners, they are always better brought here for the wider community (where ever it is) to see. JarrahTree 02:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
... no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair ...
Qui tacet consentire videtur (He who is silent is taken to agree). Mitch Ames (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
That looks like a challenge to comment. I think the "detail version" is too long, but a brief summary of the key points of the ACL platform is helpful to an understanding of why it is not precisely representative of many Christian Australian's beliefs, and why it is such a polarising organisation even if it broadly has agreement or acceptance on some topic. It's a lobby group, not a political party, but we give a description of the key policies and attitudes of many parties to help readers understand reactions. --Scott Davis Talk 10:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There are thousands of Wiki-articles which detail the views and lobbying efforts of organisations. Many examples here: environmental organizations;LGBT rights organizations and Lobbying organizations in the United States.
User:Shiftchange has said, "I'm spearheading a campaign to remove Christian propaganda, such as this from Australian articles. Join me, now! I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am fully motivated to come after every single scrap of it with military precision. I am not willing to compromise on our policies and guidelines. In the articles I watch I want to remove all but the very most important speech or quotations. I then want to replace that with concise, fact-based prose written by a Wikipedian, sourced by reliable references." Obviously a POV. On 17 November 2016 User:Shiftchange removed every single reference to ACL's views and lobbying efforts (being 42,704 characters) with the justification as "remove trivia".
Under Shiftchanges, changes, (1) the 10 year old ACL Wiki-article is decimated, the (2) its Wiki-structure is now different to most similar organisations and (3) the lede now refers to issues which are now not mentioned anywhere else.
John Warhurst, emeritus professor at ANU said, "ACL is now established in the top echelon of lobbying groups"[33] Professor Marion Maddox . . has said that ACL has achieved, "remarkable influence . . "[37] Fine, but what does the Shiftchange-ACL actually do?
I agree 100% with User:Aoziwe's comments above. I agree 100% with User:Paul foord's comments here. I recommend the ACL wiki article remains in its unvandalised state. From there it can be further improved. B20097 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason this discussion is not at Talk:Australian Christian Lobby? Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC).
For some unknown reason Shiftchange put it here??? B20097 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Next steps

The issues list has been cut back, however there are so many references that some work will be required remove those not necessary to support the issues addressed and to keep the most relevant. Paul foord (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Christian Lobby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby/Archive_4&oldid=1148760825"