Talk:1916 Australian conscription referendum

Should be renamed

This should be re-named Australian Referendum 1916. Or more well known, Australian Conscription Referendum of 1916.

The word plebiscite was not used in Australia for this vote. If you check www.nla.gov.au Trove website, which contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers throughout the first half of the 20th century, you will see 16,000+ references to "Conscription Referendum" in Australian newspapers.

If you search for "Conscription Plebiscite" you will find extensive newspaper references to the Canadian conscription plebiscite of 1942 and you won't find any references at all to an Australian plebiscite of 1916.

The word "referendum" is used in Australia, not only for approval of constitutional amendments, but also for votes of this kind which are not constitutional amendments. For example, the vote around 1980 to decide on a new national anthem. The word plebiscite is not used in Australia.Eregli bob (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Eregli bob above, as the writer of this article the plebiscite terminology is confusing in the article head because almost no one used that term at the time, and in parliamentary debates and in the government proposal it's almost always referred to as a referendum. It should be made clear in the article introduction though that it is technically not a referendum as referred to in the Australian Constitution, but a self-imposed referendum, and the term 'plebiscite' is now sometimes applied by contemporary sources because of this. --Unus Multorum (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I:I I third this recommendation. The term used at the time, not just by the public and the media,but in the legislation itself and in parliamentary discussion about the event, was "Referendum". The National Archives of Australia provide a useful factsheet about the referendums of 1916 and 1917, together with links to relevant documentation of the time. --Rod Hagen (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph to the background noting that it was historically called a referendum & the current usage of plebiscite to distinguish it from a constitutional alteration, with appropriate references including the factsheet noted by Rod Hagen. I don't have strong views as to the title of the page as long as the content reflects the important differences. The proposal to rename the page has been around since 2012 & no-one has expressed any opposition. I will give it another month (say 13 January 2017) & unless someone objects I will move the page to "Australian conscription referendum, 1916" Find bruce (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the page title you propose is quite suitable (the current title lacks the key "conscription" IMHO) so long as the article clearly explains the popular use of "referendum" for what was officially a "plebiscite". Ditto for the 1917 one. Kerry (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Article renamed "Australian referendum, 1916 (Conscription)" to reflect the consensus on the important words referendum & conscription & using the naming convention used in most other referendum articles Find bruce (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

References

The question

The question should be:

• probably listed under "Proposal", rather "Results"
• formatted better (not italics, maybe in {{quote}} or one of the other such templates)
• explicitly stated to be the question ("the plebiscite asked the question: ...")

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but the reason it was done that way was to remain consistent with the other articles on Australian referenda. Not sure if this is an agreed style for these pages or just convention.... Unus Multorum (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

English variation

G'day, interesting article. I have been working through it looking for typos and MOS issues in order to help prepare it for GAN, and one thing I've noticed is that it seems to use US English variation (for instance favor, color, honor, defense, authorize, mobilize, etc.). Is there a reason for this? My understanding per WP:ENGVAR is that it should use Australian English. I've left as is, as it seems like something that should be discussed first before changing. Are there any thoughts on this? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

In general, we should use Australian spelling, but a quick search through the article finds a couple of exceptions to watch out for:

• Australian Labor Party is spelt that way.
• Color is used in quotations, so should probably appear as it does in the original. MOS:QUOTE allow us to correct spelling errors, but these are probably not strictly "errors".
• "...ize" vs "...ise" is debatable - see WP:ISE and WP:IZE.

Mitch Ames (talk) 09:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work AustralianRupert and Mitch Ames, as you can see I've written just about all of what is currently here but I'm still a bit green in terms of Wiki formatting, the Manual of Style and other conventions and I'm glad for your help. Now that I'm better acquainted with coding citations I will be redoing them soon. In terms of the use of US English, even though I am Australian I almost always write in US English for various personal and professional reasons, and I had just assumed that this was the convention on an American encyclopedia. However I've read the links and noted that yes, Australian spelling should be used and I have no problems with it being changed, although I have a strong preference for '-ize' in Australian English regardless. The use of 'color' and 'colored' in quotations is well noted actually, and I will check whether this is actually as stated or whether I changed it myself. Unus Multorum (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

It might be hosted on US servers owned by the US company Wikimedia Foundation, but it's an English language (with all it's variations) encyclopaedia, not an American English encyclopaedia. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries, Unus Multorum, I'll leave you to it. When you've checked the quote, please let me know if you want a hand or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australian plebiscite, 1916/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Unus M, I'll be glad to take this review. In the next few days, I'll start out with a close readthrough of the article, noting any initial issues that I can't easily fix myself, and then go through the criteria checklist. Thanks in advance for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments-- opening sections

So far this looks like solid work to me, though I've noted a few possible issues below. I've tweaked some of the language for grammatical and stylistic reasons, but feel free to revert any edits you disagree with. Here are my comments from the first half of the article; I'll go through the rest once these have been addressed. Thanks for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Plebiscite vs. referendum -- is it possible to explain the difference between these two in Australian law? Perhaps using a footnote, or a parenthetical?
• "They needed around 20,000 men at once" -- who is "they" here?
• "something which Hughes made considerable beef of during the eventual campaign" -- a bit awkward, but more importantly, the idiom "made beef of" should be rewritten into plain language per WP:WTA
• "No such referendum was strictly necessary," -- here the language appears to suggest that plebiscite/referendum are interchangable
• ""Hughes reveled in his own success as a charismatic leader, and it appealed strongly to his romantic nature to be able to talk directly with the people"" -- the nature of this quotation isn't clear--is this the close associate speaking, or a historian summarizing?
• "He pulled out all the stops" -- rewrite cliche/idiom into plain language per WP:WTA; this helps make the encyclopedia more accessible to non-native speakers.
• "that the opposition that had emerged would be carried for the proposal" -- I'm not sure I understand "carried for" here--does it mean something like "persuaded to support"?
• "watering down" -- idiom -- perhaps "weakening" or "reduction"?
• "with conscription only to be implemented to make up the deficit in voluntary recruitment, with the general call-up being postponed until October, and should the numbers needed be reached by volunteerism by October, the proposal would be scrapped" --this becomes a very long sentence. Can it be broken into two?
• ""For an hour, he addressed members, trying by every one of his many oratorical, logical and political tricks to convert all, or at least some, of the Executive members to support his referendum campaign"" -- another quotation that you should make the source of clear in-text. Perhaps, "Holloway states that, "For an hour ... " But I'm not sure you actually need to give a full sentence quotation here at all. Could this just be put in your own words?
• "was going to fight for a 'Yes' vote as though he were fighting for his very life" -- identify writer of quotation in text--is this Hughes directly or the historian?
• "Hughes has been unsuccessful in taking the bulk of his party along with him." -- it's confusing that this is in present tense ("has been"), but the "along with him" is also a little unclear--is he leaving the party?
• "stared down" -- another idiom, and I'm not sure the phrase is needed. Perhaps just "Hughes nonetheless committed himself fully..."?
• What are the Coburn and Collingwood branches? Are these people or places? In either case, you might link them. If people, it would be helpful to say, perhaps, "Coburn's" instead of "Coburn".
• "Opponents to the bill" -- is it fair to still call it a bill after it's become a plebiscite?
• "One of the most ugly contentions" -- this seems a bit editorializing; I've removed it for now as it doesn't appear to be needed, but let me know if you disagree.
• "just about every influential public man in Australia otherwise supported" -- This could use some clarity. Do you mean outside of the Labor party almost everyone supported it? It seems like we've heard of many opponents already.
• " some of the most powerful images " -- a bit editorializing; this judgement should be supported with a clear source or removed.

Not listing at this time

Since it's been about a week without response to the above concerns, and the editor appears inactive, I'm not listing this one at this time. To summarize, from what I've looked at so far, I think this wouldn't require too much work to get to GA, but it will require a bit of rewriting for clearer sourcing, clarity of phrasing, and avoidance of idiom. If anyone chooses to bring this up to GA in the future (and I hope someone does!) that's where I'd suggest starting. Thanks to everybody for getting this far! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Failure to include the Irish Executions of 1916 & Dr. Mannix's power play.

Dr. Mannix heavily swayed the vote in the Aus-Irish Catholics, to vote down the Plebiscite, simply because 16 people had been executed by the British Army - from the Easter Uprising. Without Dr. Mannix's push, the Plebiscite would have voted for a "YES", for pro-conscription. Yet, it remains properly untold. — Preceding Wiki of Dr. Mannix Government Letters regarding Mannix's intention or interaction with the 1916 affair. unsigned comment added by Spanrz (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for an "untold story" - see Wikipedia:No original research. Attribution of why a referendum went one way or another is often controversial - the article lists a range of other factors in the section Aftermath. It is especially controversial to attribute success or failure (depnding on your point of view) to an individual where it is reported he only spoke twice in the 1916 campaign (his oration at Richmond racecourse was for the 1917 plebiscite) and whose main influence was in Victoria, a state that voted slightly in favour of conscription. Even the attribution of motivation for an individual is problematic and adding this to the article would require the existence of reliable, published sources. Find bruce (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)