Jump to content

Talk:Same-sex marriage in Australia/Archive 1

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

Selective deletion

I am about to delete from the article history those revisions whose content and/or edit summaries libel Xtra, per Wikipedia's libel policy. Selective deletion requires full deletion followed by selective restoration. Therefore this article will be deleted for a very brief period of time. Snottygobble 05:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge votes

I vote keep separate. There is already a reference to it under the NSW item. The page rpoposed ot be merged is too long to slot in here. --Brendan 04:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I vote merge Tapeworm87 08:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote keep separate. The Relationship Declaration is not marriage - and should therefore not be included in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page. However it is the closest thing we have in NSW at the moment to marriage. Also to include the detail about all the benefits (limited as they are) that the Relationship Declaration would confer in the "Same-sex marriage in Australia" page would confuse this page I feel, and make it too long. I think the Tasmanian Deed of Relationships and the upcoming ACT Civil Unions should have their own branches also, as the rights they confer are different - the Tasmanian Deed can even be taken out by 2 sisters (for example) where one cares for the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.164.91.130 (talk • contribs)

Deletion of paragraph in 'responses' section

The second paragraph of the 'responses to the bill section' was dubious at best and needed to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Character234 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Was the Attorney General a drummer? Under the ACT section someone has written Phillip Rudd when I think it should be Phillip Ruddock. Don't know how to change it though.

Clarification needed

I'd like to appeal to any knowledgeable Australian editors to consider reworking this article. As I read through the piece, I find it nearly impossible to understand the marriage/partnership status in each jurisdiction. I can see that the legal situation is murky in many places, but the article shouldn't be.

There is a lot of good info here on various acts and legislation; but I would like to see one clear, short statement (perhaps in bold print) at the beginning of each state/territory/city paragraph that tells me what the bottom line is: "Tasmania--Significant Relationships" etc.

As an American unfamiliar with the situation in Australia, I don't feel confident enough to do this needed clarification myself. Any takers, mates?  :-) Textorus 19:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood bank libel

In this edit to Recognition of gay unions in Australia, there was a claim saying "At present the Australian Red Cross has placed a ban on donations (since 1972) from all men who have sex with men.". The ARCBS currently has a one year ban, and I would be very surprised if they had a ban on donations to do with male-male sex back in the 1970s. And what's it doing in a gay union article (as opposed to LGBT rights in Australia) anyway?

This isn't the first time untrue stuff has been said in wikipedia about blood banking in Australia. Andjam 06:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo necessity?

under the 'Civil union proposals' section, im just wondering if the photo is really necessary. Not saying it offends me or anything, i just hardly see the relevance.--Zoobz19 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I've removed the photo. Nobody obviously had anything to say about it, and I don't see that it contributes in any way to the article. Better to have some graphs or statistics. Ikzing (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6933.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.12.171.218 (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that all the news links and Hansard links at the bottom of the page are removed. I don't see how it helps, and just seems to clutter the page. If there is a better location for them, perhaps someone can move them there. Thanks. Ikzing (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth discrimination removed.

I would like to bring this to everyone's attention:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/24/2428430.htm

The commonwealth loopholes have been closed it seems, but I am not that experienced with editing wiki. Lachy123 (talk) 08:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi. I've put up the Cleanup tag on this article, since it is a bit of a mess. Australian relationship law is indeed among the most compelx in the world, and I'm not entirely sure what the best way to reorganise this article will be. I'm leaning towards having four large sections:

  • Same-sex marriage - should include the statutory ban introduced in 2004, the 2006 private members bill to legalise SSM, the Tasmanian Bill of 2008 to legalise SSM, as well as current public debating and polling on the subject (the latter two aspects are currently absent from the article)
  • Civil unions and registries - should include federal civil union proposals and the Rudd Government's views on the national registration system. Since there's not a lot of content here, this could simply be merged into a larger "Federal recognition" section, including both de-facto recognition and proposals for federal civil unions and registries.
  • Federal de-facto recognition - should include discussion about the 2008 same-sex reforms passed recently, as well as the history of recognition (previous discrimination, the Howard Government's position, and the HREOC inquiry).
  • State recognition - this section is quite OK already, but could be made a bit tighter.

What does everyone think? Finally, I also propose moving this article to Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. The article specifically talks about the legal recognition of same-sex couples, rather than the broader subject of same-sex relationships, which would also have to include topics such as demographics, the sociology of these couples, etc. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

What a silly article name change. Nothing wrong with the previous one. Look at the bottom table, nothing to do with same sex unions. Timeshift (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Indeed, the summary table shouldn't even be located in this article; it is already at LGBT rights in Australia. However, I don't see why the summary table has anything to do with the name change. The article was previously at Same-sex relationships in Australia. I moved the article so that it is consistent with other countries, and also to reflect the fact that this article is about legal recognition and rights, not about other things relating to same-sex relationships, like sociology or demographics. Ronline ✉ 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The change in name is slight but makes a big difference. I agree the page has lost its focus and is overlapping a little too much in LGBT rights. I'm also thinking, as you propose it, the State Recognition section may end up being redundant since each state could easily fall into the other three sections. Ikzing (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Reintroduction

I originally added a mention of the rejection of the 09 bill under the 09 bill section but this has already been discussed earlier so I removed it. However I added to the intro the intention of the Greens to reintroduce the bill after the 2010 election. Is that ok? small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieBob (talk • contribs) 13:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporters of same-sex marriage in Australia

Hello, I'm wondering whether it would be possible to add a section to this article which lists parliamentarians who are on the record as supporters of same-sex marriage in Australia. I believe that the list below is comprehensive. I have citations for all but a couple. 202.138.25.32 (talk) 06:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Labor Party HOUSE OF REPRESENATIVES 1. Michael Danby MP, Member for Melbourne Ports, VIC 2. Peter Garrett MP, Member for Kingsford Smith, NSW 3. Sharon Grierson MP, Member for Newcastle, NSW 4. Andrew Leigh MP, Member for Fraser, ACT 5. Stephen Jones MP, Member for Throsby, NSW 6. Kirsten Livermore MP, Member for Capricornia, QLD 7. Graham Perrett MP, Member for Moreton, QLD 8. Sid Sidebottom MP, Member for Braddon, TAS 9. Bill Shorten MP, Member for Maribyrnong, VIC 10. Melissa Parke MP, Member for Fremantle, WA 11. Janelle Saffin MP, Member for Page, NSW

SENATE 1. Mark Arbib, Senator for NSW 2. Doug Cameron, Senator for NSW 3. Trish Crossin, Senator for NT 4. Louise Pratt, Senator for WA 5. Claire Moore, Senator for QLD 6. Penny Wong, Senator for SA

Liberal Party HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Teresa Gambaro MP, Member for Brisbane, QLD 2. Mal Washer MP, Member for Moore, WA

SENATE 1. Simon Birmingham, Senator for SA

Australian Greens HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Adam Bandt MP, Member for Melbourne, VIC

SENATE 1. Bob Brown, Senator for Tasmania 2. Christine Milne, Senator for Tasmania 3. Rachel Siewert, Senator for WA 4. Scott Ludlum, Senator for WA 5. Sarah Hanson-Young, Senator for SA

Independents HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1. Andrew Wilkie MP, Member for Denison, TAS

Request additional article

I would greatly appreciate a simple timeline listing all legislative changes and attempted changes, eg first moves to decriminalise homosexuality up to latest reforms, as well as other major events eg first Mardi Gras. I realise it wouldn't actually be 'simple' to do otherwise I'd try myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs emma hudson (talk • contribs) 09:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Minor Information Correction

Just changed the information regarding Laurie Ferguson. Previously it said that he represented the seat of Macarthur in Victoria. He actually represents the seat of Werriwa in NSW. Additionally, Macarthur is also a seat in NSW, not Victoria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieBob (talk • contribs) 06:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Updates?

This article looks slightly out of date.

I'm not sure if I'm speaking too soon, but I havn't seen any updated information in reference to the changes in same sex relationship laws in the ACT and Tasmania(e.g. legal ceremonies).

Plus if I'm not mistaken. Shouldn't the ACT and Tasmania's colours on the map be changed to the "civil union" colour? Do they now fall under the "civil union" category? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.48.197 (talk) 10:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The introduction incorrectly described South Australia. According to the Statutes Amendment (Domestic Partners) Act 2006 (Number 43), the same-sex couples may make a written agreement called a Domestic Partnership Agreement about their living arrangements. I have added this to the article.PjThompso 09:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjthompso (talk • contribs)

UPDATE QUEENSLAND NEW CIVIL UNION LAW PASSED IN DEC 1ST 2011. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-01/queensland-parliament-passes-same-sex-bill/3705444?section=qld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.18 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have begun editing some sections of articles in realtion to the Civil Partnerships Act 2011 that was passed on December 1st 2011 in QLD. Just to double check are we considering same-sex unions and same-sex partnerships as the same thing? The wikipedia page for same-sex unions does also refer to unions as partnerships or should we consider this more of a Domestic partnership registry. Im finding it to be very ambiguous when reading all the news articles that have been released. Here is the link to the bill so that people can assess it: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/53PDF/2011/CivilPartB11_P.pdf Daniel.w92 (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed Rob Mitchell from list

I removed Rob Mitchell as it's the only name in the list without a cite and I cannot find a cite online for him. I've left a message on the contributor's talk page. Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

List of federal parliamentarians who publicly support gay marriage

I've just updated these lists, which included adding in politicians who have declared their support since the last update, and removing those who are no longer sitting. One thing I noticed while checking some of the references was that 'support' did not necessarily equate to voting for it, should such a law come before parliament. What I was hoping someone could tell me is, what is the requirement for this list for a politician to be considered to support same-sex marriage? Is it a declaration (be it implicit or explicit) that they would vote for such a reform, or just a statement (however vague) that they at the very least don't have anything against it. What about the ambiguous cases, where they declare personal support but state they would not vote for it?

Incidentally, below is a website that would be useful in keeping these lists updated, as it is essentially summarising the same information, usually with links to the news articles the information is derived from. http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/whereyourmpstands/

121.45.69.236 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've removed Nick Xenophon from the list who support marriage equality because he voted against the Marriage Equality Bill 2009 on 25 Feb 2010 - as per the Hansard http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansards%2F2010-02-25%2F0166%22 and also he is listed as undeclared/undecided on http://www.australianmarriageequality.com . It may well be the case that he supports same-sex civil union but that is not the title of the list. SeventhHell (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Misleading or confusing?

In the introduction section, end of the fourth paragraph; "Nevertheless, despite equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership or civil union scheme."

Australia does not have a national registry of hetrosexual marriages or defacto relationship either. These are register at a State level. However the Law regarding Marriage[1] is national and therefore a distiguishing factor.

124.179.93.164 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, despite equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership or civil union scheme."

I think this sentence is misleading and should be removed, or at least be revised to show that there's no national registry for all relationships. Though, this would just leave "despite equality of rights", i.e. same-sex couples already have all the rights as married/un-married heterosexual couples. And I think this would remove the 'punch-line' the original author intended. Maybe the whole section needs to be revised.

203.15.103.1 (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)tbarnes

Free expression and religious liberty

Currently there are two alternative paragraphs for this article section. These are:

Alternative one, Editor Callinus

David van Gend, a Christian right political candidate, frequently promotes his opinion that gay parents will create a stolen generation[2][3][4] and has taken quotes of Julia Gillard out of context.[5] TV channels that ran his ads during the Sydney Mardi Gras were widely criticised on social media,[6][7] and the Advertising Standards Bureau received "a large number of complaints" but cannot adjudicate over political advertising.[8][9] Foxtel has been bombarded with threats of subscription cancellations from customers after running ads from van Gend's organisation,[10][11] and multiple radio and TV networks have declined ads from van Gend, with NOVA Entertainment saying the ads don't fit with their youthful brand.[11] An August 2015 episode of Media Watch found that growing numbers of tv channels refuse to run van Gend's ads, and that news media coverage of stunts for and against same-sex marriage was "skewed" towards the positive side. Paul Barry argued that "both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard".[11]

Alternative two, Editor B20097

In August 2015, Paul Barry the host of the ABC, Media Watch program entitled, Media equality on marriage equality? said, "the overall media coverage of the debate has also been skewed" citing examples by both the print and electronic media. He said, "both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard".[12]

Possibly the two alternatives can be combined. I seek a solution from other Wiki editors. B20097 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Note:
One of these accounts was very recently created and only edits in one topic area on two articles.
The issue is cherry picking of the Media Watch reference. The MediaWatch article quotes The Age, which discussed consumer boycott/outrage, then went on to discuss media bias. The two issues are conflated in the conclusion. Single purpose user B20097 is attempting to whitewash the existence of consumer opposition to van Gend, which is included in the mediawatch source. -- Callinus (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
In August 2015 with the a possible 2017 Labor vote and a future plebiscite / referendum, the SSM focus has moved from the parliament to the people, from slogans to issues, from shouting to (hopefully) respect and from 'urgency' to a more considered determination. There are deeply held views on both sides. With a plebiscite both sides will put their case, with SSM supporters and (say the) 'Retain Existing Marriage Act' (REMA) supporters. REMA might be considered as the 'conservationists'. Wikipedia could reflect this with a new article created to balance the current 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia'. The new article would not need the concurrent tabulation, 'Federal parliamentarians who publicly support REMA' scorecard. In the current situation, there is a large number of gay-specialist-media. They, in term, often run stories based on social media input. All support SSM. These feed as RS into Wikipedia. When the REMA case is made in blogs and conservative-specialist-media, they may be deemed non-RS and is therefore excluded from Wikipedia. SSM can be presented an extremely important national issue - when surveys show it is of limited interest to the wider community. All this can skew this Wikipedia article. As Paul Barry says, "surely both sides of the debate have an equal right to be heard".
In terms of the freedom of expression and in light of the above. The Wikipedia entry could be restructured as follows:
Free expression and religious liberty (as a possible structure)
1 Claimed limitation of REMA free expression.
2 SSM reasons for the need to limit that expression.
3 Claimed limitation of SSM free expression.
4 REMA reasons for the need to limit that expression.
5 Adjudication of the situation
An example (and in very draft form - all to comply with WP:P&G)
1 REMA say they have been abused,[13] had a business threatened,[14] had an implied financial threat,[15] had ads pulled,[16] been demonised,[17] been threatened with legal action,[18] had businesses attacked,[19] received "vicious attacks"[20] and based on this experience, REMA concern for future if SSM becomes law.[21]
2 SSM say in response . . . . . van Gend reference(s) (from Callinus - above), but less COATRACK
3 SSM say . . .
4 REMA say in response . . .
5 Adjudication could include the Media Watch findings.[22].¬¬¬¬ B20097 (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Federal parliamentarians who publicly support same-sex marriage

The support of Senators Sam Dastyari and Lisa Singh, for SSM - as claimed by AME - is at odds with their non-support, cited at <https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/> (there may be other inconsistencies in the current article tabulations of politicians). "Australian Marriage Equality is an advocacy group . . to pursue the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Australia". The AME citation-substantiation is simply "SUPPORTER" in green-font or "OPPOSED" in red-font - nothing more. AME does not have a NPOV when compiling these statistics. Reliable sources should be used for any claim regarding political support for SSM. All entries in the current tabulation require WP:RSs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B20097 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Callinus for rectifying the problem B20097 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
refs
refs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ "Marriage Act 1961". Wikipedia.
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20150823123708/http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/local-news/gay-stolen-generation-gp-up-for-senate-seat/103685
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20150819002834/http://australianmarriage.org/media-release-bill-shorten-calls-for-a-new-stolen-generation/
  4. ^ "Adelaide's same-sex fathers on Australia's marriage equality debate: 'We're just like any other family'". ABC News. Dr David van Gend, president of the Australian Marriage Forum, aligned the introduction of legalising same-sex marriage and adoption to past government policies, which created forced adoption and the stolen generation.
  5. ^ http://mumbrella.com.au/julia-gillard-seeking-legal-advice-after-being-quoted-in-anti-gay-marriage-advert-311658
  6. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/backlash-after-antimarriage-equality-ad-debuts-on-mardi-gras-night-20150308-13y8yi.html
  7. ^ http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/anti-marriage-equality-ad-pulled-from-sbs-tv/story-fnizhakg-1227253242695
  8. ^ https://adstandards.com.au/blog/why-ad-standards-wont-look-australian-marriage-forum-ad-0
  9. ^ http://mumbrella.com.au/ad-watchdog-says-it-not-rule-on-controversial-anti-marriage-equality-ad-280610
  10. ^ http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/foxtel-customers-angered-by-ads-against-samesex-marriage-20150809-givarl.html
  11. ^ a b c "Media equality on marriage equality?". ABC News. 17 August 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  12. ^ "Media equality on marriage equality?". ABC News. 17 August 2015. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
  13. ^ St James, Chad (27 August 2012). "Coffee with Wendy Francis". SameSame. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  14. ^ Warhurst, John (29 October 2014). "Pressure groups and the lessons political leaders should learn". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  15. ^ "ACU and LGBT+ Society respond to criticism of 'cost of equality' event tonight".
  16. ^ Tim Wilson (12 March 2015). "Australian Marriage Forum ad might be distasteful but it should have been screened". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  17. ^ van Gend, David (5 June 2015). "Demonise and censor: the winning strategy of the gay marriage movement". Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  18. ^ "Debate heats up over Catholic traditional marriage booklet". outinperth.com. 25 Jun 2015. Archived from the original on 14 Aug 2015.
  19. ^ Brodal, Tina (2 June 2015). "Vandals spray 'bigot' on doctor's surgery after he 'stands up to the gay marriage juggernaut' – but he vows to continue to oppose law change". Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  20. ^ "Lyle Shelton describes Q&A response to Katy Faust as "vicious attacks"". Out in Perth. 19 August 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2015.
  21. ^ "The same-sex marriage debate and the right to religious belief".
  22. ^ "Media equality on marriage equality?". ABC News. 17 August 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2015.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Bias in the "Free expression and religious liberty" section?

Hi all, The following sentance appears in the second last paragraph of this section:

'Lyle Shelton says that he dislikes Bernard Keane calling him a "nauseating piece of filth" on Twitter,[383] and that criticism of a Q&A guest amounts to "vicious attacks"'

These two propositions reflect the bias of the author - in that the first one uses "dislikes" to diminish the comments made by Lyle Shelton in the referenced article; and the second asserts that the comments labelled as "vicious attacks" by the subject were in fact mere criticism. Neither of these views are stated in the references. Given this is likely a contentious section in an article about a contentious subject, I'm not making the edit (I don't edit Wikipedia much) but put it to anyone taking an interest in this page that in the interests of removing bias the sentance would be better worded something like:

'In response to Bernard Keane calling him "a nauseating piece of filth" on Twitter, Lyle Shelton stated that if he posted a simliar tweet about Rodney Croome, leader of Australian Marriage Equality, he would be hounded out of his job[383]. He also described responses from Q&A panelists to American blogger Katy Faust on an episode of the show as "vicious".[384]'

Quotes from the existing references that support this:

  1. '“If I tweeted something like that about Rodney Croome, who is the leader of [Australian Marriage Equality, the pro same-sex marriage lobby], I would be hounded out of my job,” Mr Shelton said.'
  2. 'Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby has described the responses from panelists on the ABC’s ‘Q&A’ program to American blogger Katy Faust as “vicious"'

If someone who has been involved in curating the content of this page would like to make this edit, I'd greatly appreciate it. It just stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it as reflecting a particular view that Mr Shelton's comments were not valid, and that's not helpful for encyclopedic content.

Juzzie79 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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) 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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) 02:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Too much trivial detail

This article has too much trivial detail about things which will not matter in the long term. Its like a summary of related news articles. I don't think it matters what an MP said 10 years ago about it. Each poll result doesn't have to be elaborated on. If contributors to this page could summarise some of the information, not focus on what politicians have said and include just the most significant events the article would be clearer and be read more. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean really. Who has the time to read this article? This is an encyclopedia, not a forensic analysis of everything related to the topic. This article should only include the most relevant accumulated knowledge on the matter. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I think it would benefit from having the details split into new related articles. I would do this myself, except I am new to editing Wikipedia and not familiar enough with how to do this. I'd be sure to mess it up! But I do think the information is important, including what politicians said 10 years ago, because it is a contentious issue. Showing not just where we are today but how things have changed over time. Not that everyone can even agree 'where we are today' which is why there are so many polls and it is important to include background information about those polls to ensure they aren't taken out of context etc. But it needn't all be on the one page, and should split into new related and linked pages. Powertothepeople (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

DISPUTED sections

The two relevant sections under the COMMUNITY DEBATE section (Religious and lobby groups and Free expression and religious liberty) read like an advertisement or lecture from opponents of SSM. The whole section is unnecessarily detailed. I would hazard a guess that when or if SSM becomes legal in Australia, after things calm down this whole section may well be deleted or significantly reduced. But for now, feel free to discuss it here. Jono52795 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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) 13:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Trimming

This article needs a trim back and I know how. All the sentences that consist solely of statements should be removed because they are unencyclopedic. They explain nothing. We should not include details such as what Anthony Albanese said after the second reading of the Marriage Amendment Act 2004. We should not be listing a grab bag of statements that made recent headlines. We should not be documenting when various politicians or organisations make statements of support or otherwise because this is too arbitrary: it is based on a personal whim. This explains nothing. The exception to this is in the creation of stand-alone list pages.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We are to write about the subject. We are not here to transcribe what was said about things. That is considered trivia. Please see Wikiquote if quotations are really important to you. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

All the sentences that consist solely of statements should be removed — I presume you mean "all the sentences consist solely of quotations ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, descriptions of various statements that are made, exact quotations, paragraphs that are only about what he said or she said. Am I wrong? Is there a good reason to include commentary in an encyclopedia? I'm not aware of one. Lets keep the quotations in review, in Reception sections for cultural works, unless there is a good specific justification for their inclusion. I see ample reason for their exclusion and sufficient justification in our policies and guidelines. Does anyone really think a casual reader is going to make it through this article as it is? Are you interested in the fact that Simon Copland speculated about marriage equality in a gay community newspaper in 2015? When we allow our good hard work to appear next to dribble like this we make a mockery of ourselves. I'm not willing to let it slide anymore, especially when it comes with a harmful agenda. Thank you for responding to my concerns. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. 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) 22:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Although a non-involved admin is usually the one to move, in this case we have unanimity of responses and it is clear this is an uncontroversial move. Invoking WP:SNOWBALL in particular as well as WP:CONSISTENCY. Jono52795 (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia → Same-sex marriage in Australia – This change of title is standard for every other country that has legalised SSM. Whilst I realise some might think the current title more accurately refers all the content of the article, I believe WP:COMMONNAME & WP:NPOVTITLE would recommend the change of title. Jono52795 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend splitting the marriage -specific stuff to the new title and leaving this as a broader overview of all the forms of relationship recognition, though jono makes good points so I'm not strongly opposed to moving the whole thing. Goldcactus (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
After royal assent, the article should be renamed. M.Karelin (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
An additional point in favour of moving the page as I propose is that we already have a History of same-sex marriage in Australia article. Which means you'd have SSM being discussed in 3 articles; this one (much more briefly than what it currently is), the History article and the new split article (which would require something of a compromise b/w the lengthy History article and the condensed SSM section on this article). Seems silly to me. While some wikipedians don't like it, there's plenty of other SSM in [Country] articles which feature discussion of other unions (usually civil unions or registered partnerships - see Malta and Germany.) Jono52795 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support, but only after royal assent. Isseubnida (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. History of same-sex marriage in Australia should be merged with this article, and content about other unions should be in separate article. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we now close this per WP:SNOWBALL? Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Issue with move

Turns out it’s a case of WP:MOR. See WP:RM#TR for the technical request I’ve made. Anyone (admin) or otherwise who can fix this would be much appreciated. I apologise, I haven’t encountered this before. Jono52795 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Jono52795 (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Correction. It has been moved. Thankyou to the mystery assistant. Jono52795 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome. Bradv 03:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

25th country to legalise SSM

For the benefit of this user and any other potential trolls, and in accordance with WP:BRD, Australia is the 25th country to legalise/recognise SSM (see here). UK/Northern Ireland situation could lead some to challenge this, but every mainstream media source considers Aus. the 25th, so feel free to discuss the claim here. Jono52795 (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You said in your revert summary Australia IS the 25th SSM country, assuming you include UK despite it not being legal in Northern Ireland.. So I personally don't count the UK or Mexico since it is not legal country wide in either nation. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the discussed sentence is not necessary. There was a dispute in other Wikipedia article on how to treat UK and Mexico (as well as the Netherlands), which lasted for long time. In my opinion, we should not to reopen this. The sentence should be removed. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I can live with that. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
More than happy to have the sentence removed. The editor who removed it said that Wales and Scotland were being counted as independent countries, which is just totally inaccurate. Australia is the 25th country to legalise SSM, if you include the UK Parliament's legislation in 2013. Most mainstream media sources discussing Australia's bill have basically done this. But I don't see any need for the sentence given the division. Just following the WP:BRD process. Jono52795 (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Wouldnt it just be better to add a clarifying note that it is not yet legal throughout the UK and Mexico? If the sources are consistent that may be the better approach. Goldcactus (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Goldcactus (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Infuriating and deliberate edits

A number of edits were made exclusively to the SSM history section. They contained poor grammar, excessive headers and were designed to make the page unreadable and poorly formatted. These edits were made by User talk:210.50.251.233 and came with no explanation for their justification. Suffice to say it is a deliberate effort on the part of some anti-gay juveniles to make this (and other gay rights pages) as illegible and complex as possible. Jono52795 (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've re-applied a couple of my changes [1][2] - I presume these were lost unintentionally in the cleanup of 210.50.251.233's edits, but if someone disagrees with them, please start a new talk page section to discuss. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Same-sex_marriage_in_Australia/Archive_1&oldid=1137171510"