Jump to content

Talk:Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey/Archive 1

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

Notice

Given there is the potential for this whole survey to be squashed in the High Court before it even begins, anyone editing would be advised not to include too much general info until it becomes clear that it is definitely going ahead. If the Court blocks the vote I will nominate the page for a speedy deletion. Jono52795 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

It won't meet any criteria for speedy deletion, and won't meet criteria for deletion either. The process leading up to the vote and the legal challenge would still be notable. F (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

RE: Notice

Would it warrant speedy deletion? It is a notable event in any case and there are a few things happening (i.e. who is supporting and not etc) that may warrant preservation into the future. If not on a standalone page, included into another somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James.au (talk • contribs) 05:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Good Post

I posted good things on the page and somebody bloody deleted it. they where the following The City of Darebin will allow ‘yes’ campaigners to use council facilities and services for free in the lead up to the postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. But ‘no’ campaigners will be barred from using council facilities. .[1] and Media Watch (TV program) done a report which shown the media is not balanced and its Pro gay marriage.[2]

All of things and the Truth and Facts. They Must be on it. Torygreen84 (talk) 09:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Torygreen84: The editor didn't leave an edit summary to explain their edits unfortunately, but I agree your contribution probably should not exist, especially in that form of poor grammar. You've given, I would argue, undue weight to the actions of a local government. The Media Watch line is heavily biased and not neutral at all - and the citation doesn't indicate your claim that 'all media is not balanced.' -- Whats new?(talk) 09:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

1 on the first one then Fix the grammar. 2 on the media watch I will Right a Wrong with putting media coverage is Not balanced. I will fix it and I will put it back then. Torygreen84 (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The MediaWatch reference does not refer specifically to this current postal survey. The citation represents interesting and dated WP:OR. However, the Darebin Council reference is highly relevant to the article topic and should stay. "The council will also write to local churches and religious groups to warn them of the “potentially harmful impacts of campaigning against marriage equality” (at the same time) "Cr Rennie rejected suggestions the council was limiting free speech". B20097 (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

Shouldn't the controversies section discuss controversies over the age of participants, access to voters in remote areas and by overseas voters - issues that have been reported in international media? At present, the controversies appear weighted towards a particular perspective on freedom of speech. Trankuility (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the view of some editors in the above section. I had previously removed some of these "controversies" previously and they were restored, so discussion and consensus is required per the WP:BRD cycle -- Whats new?(talk) 04:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither of those two above rationales provide a reason why the current Controversies section should be removed. Alternatively, it could be woven in the body of the article.B20097 (talk)
I didn't say anything about removing the section. I just think that, you know, voter disenfranchisement is more of a controversy than the advocacy items currently listed. Maybe a country used to mandatory voting isn't used to considering such issues. Trankuility (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
fine - add that and monitor this > Same-sex marriage postal plebiscite a debacle likely to happen for Malcolm Turnbull B20097 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 August 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: MOVED to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. The official name given by the ABS has the most support on the numbers alone, however there is significant support for Australian same-sex marriage survey and variations with or without the word "postal" and the year. I take the point that official government program names can be excessively bureaucratic and unwieldy and should not automatically be the corresponding article name, however I don't believe this is so in this case: the official ABS name is quite concise in just five words. If anything, the lack of consistency of terminology in the media further suggests applying an official name. Additionally, it appears inclusion of the term "same-sex" is not without controversy (although this has not been mentioned in the discussion)—there is some contention that the term, when used instead of "marriage equality", excludes some members of the trans community—however, since the term is used in the wording of the question, I don't think this can or should be avoided, at least in the lede (although the ABS's rationale may have considered this when deciding their name). Finally, the inclusion of the words "Law" and "Postal" have no doubt been carefully considered by the ABS and are worthwhile inclusions, given the controversy about the nature of the process, and that it is a proposal about a law change not attitudes to marriage equality in general. Canley (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


Australian survey, 2017 (Marriage) → ? – Should the title be changed? I think it's a bit clunky and usually referendums of this kind - though this is obviously not legally the same as a referendum or plebiscite - have [Jurisdiction name], [same-sex marriage referendum/survey], [year]. Given that what do people think of a change to either Australian same-sex marriage survey, 2017 or Australian marriage survey, 2017. I prefer the former option. Support one of these two options or make another suggestion or simply oppose. Jono52795 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Primefac (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

We definitely have consensus for a move, but what to move it to is a little messier. Cjhard (talk) 06:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like a runaway to me. Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. I think the early ones that tagged 2017 onto the end will acquiesce to the shorter version. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
By my count (which will be amended upon my response), of those who are unambivalent about the choices, we have 6 7 in favour of “same-sex marriage” and 8 in favour of “Marriage Law Postal Survey”, we also have 6 in favour of including the year and 5 6 opposed to including the year. I can't see the inclusion or exclusion of the year being particularly controversial (though you never know, right?) but it would be best if we nailed down one or the other. The lack of clear consensus on the "same-sex marriage" vs "Marriage Postal Survey" could be more contentious, so that will need to be ironed out some. Cjhard (talk) 06:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm highly amused by how things that seem obvious to me are, apparently, not obvious. (c.f. If I'm so clever, how come I'm not rich?) Pdfpdf (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC) BTW: If anyone has a source for that quote, please drop it on user talk:pdfpdf
  • Support Australian same-sex marriage postal survey - Drop the "2017" for conciseness, it's not necessary for now. The wording "same-sex marriage" gives the title more recognisability than "marriage law". I think including "postal" is also necessary for recognisibility. Without the postal element it could be any survey in Australia on same-sex marriage. Cjhard (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey - a) per The Drover's Wife: "less awkward title" (Possibly the first time in a decade we have agreed!) b) More importantly, other reasons too - see above. (No value in me duplicating them.) c) Don't agree that "Australian same-sex marriage postal survey" is the best choice. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What does the article itself suggest should be its title? The guts of the article are in the first six words in the lede - "A nationwide survey on same-sex marriage". Therefore I Support Australian same-sex marriage postal survey.Moriori (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I could be mistaken, but I believe when this page was created and that lede was written at creation [4], the official ABS title hadn't been made public -- Whats new?(talk) 00:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh? My comment had nothing to do with the official ABS title, whatever that is. Perhaps I didn't make it clear. What I meant is that the intro is an accurate précis of the article content which is about a nationwide survey on same-sex marriage, and the title should reflect the lede and content.Moriori (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
If the title was changed, the lede would change with it. 'Following the lead' doesn't seem a relevant rationale -- Whats new?(talk) 03:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That is one of the most illogical things I have seen in 14 years of editing Wikipedia. If the name changed to Support Australian same-sex marriage postal survey, the lede would still start with "A nationwide survey on same-sex marriage..." and the article would still be about "A nationwide survey on same-sex marriage...". There would be no need to change the lede. Moriori (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to if it the title was changed to Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, as is preferred by most to date, then the lead would be updated. My point was basing the title off the first words of a lead which can be changed readily does not seem like a solid justification -- Whats new?(talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. While the official name is not ipso facto the correct name, nor should we reject it just because it is official. It is recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent. Some of the alternatives as used in the media reflect the POVs of the people being quoted (and sometimes also the journalists themselves), and none of them comply as well with WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Looking at various sources, it's clear that there's no one commonly used name for this postal vote:

One helpful thing of note though, is that "Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey" is not used in any common sense outside of government websites. It is not used extensively in secondary sources. That name in quotes has 7 results in a google search for news. It's important to note that the official title should not be the article title for no reason other than the fact that it is the official title. In order to achieve consensus, I'd be curious as to whether those voting for the official title believe it is the title that would best satisfy WP:NAMINGCRITERIA notwithstanding its officialism, and if not, what would be that title? Cjhard (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As you have pointed out, reliable sources use a variety of terms, so I'm not sure how or why you would choose one media outlet's preferred title. Much of the media is still arguably transitioning from calling it a plebiscite (which this no longer legally is). One could argue WP:NCGAL is the closest to a specific guideline on naming conventions, but in my view, given the inconsistency in titles from one media outlet to the next, the official title makes the most sense to use. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that my suggested title is based on any one media outlet's preferred title (mine matches none) or that anyone should pick from that list. That list was only to demonstrate a lack of common title and to make the point that the official title hasn't seen any significant use outside of primary sources. Cjhard (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I understand that, but my point was there is no one single 'common name' used, so I don't see why a made up title should be used when an official title exists, that will undoubtedly become more widely used and thus recognised in time -- Whats new?(talk) 08:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

One helpful thing of note though, is that "Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey" is not used in any common sense outside of government websites.

Why is that a "helpful" thing to note? (It most certainty doesn't "help" me!) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
is not used in any common sense outside of government websites - Errrr. So what? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Helpful or otherwise, an IMPORTANT thing to note is that opinions expressed during this sort of discussion are NOT an election. What is important about them is the arguments made and supported, NOT the number of people saying "Me too". What's important is WHY they are saying "Me too" and what they are saying "me too" about. The actual relative numbers about "me too" for one case vs "me too" for another are irrelevant. So that's the factual bit. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Not wishing to be insulting but ... I'm having a LOT of trouble seeing why "Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey" is not the obvious and unambiguous choice. I appreciate Cjhard's efforts, but they haven't convinced me of anything that would cause me to change my opinion. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Note: I've notified the Administrators' noticeboard of this discussion, where some senior editors may be better placed to help determine a title -- Whats new?(talk) 23:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I was intending to close this discussion today, but I feel somewhat involved—although I have not ventured an opinion as such, I do have one, so I agree it would be preferable for an uninvolved admin to assess the state of consensus. However it this doesn't happen, I'm happy to move and close the request (with my comments and reasoning). --Canley (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Canley, given you're an admin and haven't ventured an opinion (just a comment) I wouldn't see an issue in you closing it if, as you say, an uninvolved admin doesn't pop up. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:25, 18 August 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.

Responses to the campaign

The party positions table is a bit skew whiff. Formatting tables is difficult & I am happy to help sort that out, but it is not clear to me what is trying to be displayed - is it the parties position on same sex marriage or the parties position on the survey? Find bruce (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I'm not quite up to that section yet, we should include the parties positions on the question but if there's going to be a table it should feature only parties represented in parliament and should include a quote or statement (with reference) identifying what position they are advocating. The way it is currently formatted is a bit ridiculous and the inclusion of party histories and the like is not really needed. Would greatly appreciate assitance cleaning it up but will get around to it probably in the next 24 hours. Jono52795 (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I putted it in the first place The frist Official party positions is about their stance in parliament and then the others such as No campaign Political parties is their stance during the campaign. I am going to put One Nation as a Neutral during the campaign. just like the Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 they had 3 sides. Torygreen84 (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

its for the parties position on the survey.Torygreen84 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Public figures

is any person going to add more names for the No campaign?. its not like no one is coming out for the no campaign. Torygreen84 (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Torygreen84: Names are added as reliable sources can be found to accompany them. Some individuals may be assumed to be voting no, but not necessarily involved in the campaign and thus should not be listed. There will almost certainly be more notable individuals for the yes case than no anyway. -- Whats new?(talk) 10:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a very biased comment and I hope and I know its not the case. Torygreen84 (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Torygreen84: Sorry, I'm not sure which part you think is biased, but in any event, any editor including yourself can and should add notable individuals which are reliably sourced to the article. -- Whats new?(talk) 12:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing the "Taxpayer funded media" section

I've removed this section previously, and it has been added back (albeit with different content) so I'll start a discussion to outline why I don't think it should be included. Firstly, an internal directive at the ABC that they should remain impartial seems at odds with being included in a section headed "Impartiality by government entities" when there isn't significant, independent evidence the organisation at a whole has not been. Secondly, the fact panellists on an ABC program support one side is not evidence of impartiality - one can be a 'yes' supporter and yet provide a fair hearing to the alternate viewpoint. In any case, again, one program is not representative of the ABC as a whole -- Whats new?(talk) 23:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is the section called "Impartiality..." when it is only accusing public bodies of lack of it? It's weasel words to just say "it was criticised"—at least give some context and identify the critics (News Corp? Shock jocks/talkback callers? Local ratepayers? Parliamentary opposition? Federal minister?) Why are taxpayer-funded MPs exempt from such criticism but inner city councils (who I'm sure are well aware of the demographics of their constituent base) are copping it? --Canley (talk) 00:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
See new 'Controversies' section. I'm not a fan of including every minute detail involved in this debate but if it's to be included we should adopt some neutral terminology which doesn't give the impression Wikipedia is favouring the opinions of one side. Jono52795 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I still don't think the 'media' section is appropriate at all - even in its new section. There's nothing "controversial" about the ABC issuing advice to staff, commentators on an opinion program having an opinion and a minister saying the ABC should be considered and respectful. I'm failing to see the controversy. -- Whats new?(talk) 03:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the whole section seems to be quite a stretch (or a bash-the-ABC exercise). And the Insiders panel was people from News Corp, Seven West and Fairfax, but the ABC cops it for their opinions? Then they end the episode as always with a "comedy" song from YouTube, presented without comment or endorsement. I know it's the "taxpayer funded" angle that is supposed to be the so-called controversy, but the only organisation-wide response has been a direction to staff to be balanced. --Canley (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and even the direction doesn't seem notable - it wasn't in direct response to anything related to the survey nor controversial. -- Whats new?(talk) 06:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with you both. In my view the Media section should be removed but it appears we'll need a broader discussion among other Wikipedians before than can happen. Jono52795 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
It may be helpful if @B20097:, who added the section, contributed to the discussion -- Whats new?(talk) 09:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
An ABC direction was given. The direction was aimed at the upcoming SSM vote. The direction requested impartiality by the ABC. As well as the Emma Alberici instance, RSs referred to a subsequent ABC Insiders program which they said contravened that directive. They noted it was pro-SSM and also including a song - the words of which referred to the No-case supporters as "homophobic" and "bigoted cunts". RSs noted that people complained. That is the basis for the Allegations of advocacy in public media section. It should stay. B20097 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
One episode of one program does not constitute the ABC as a whole being impartial, especially when it is an opinion program. Alberici made comments on her personal Twitter account which is not the responsibility of the ABC. It is giving undue weight to mention every instance where something related to the ABC is supportive of SSM. -- Whats new?(talk) 13:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Please. 1 The article wording, "does not constitute the ABC as a whole being impartial [sic]" 2 Does not include, "Alberici" 3 Does not, "mention every instance where something" B20097 (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Re Insiders, I can see a perspective that the views of the other organisations have been edited/editorialised by the Insiders production/presentaiton team to fit a narrative. Not that i am commenting on that narrative of course, but that action internalises the views of external bodies into the ABC. The youtube clip you refer to I thought was generated by the Insiders team too. Again though, one show doesnt make a network, this is only for information and context to the discussion James.au (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

List of people

Can I suggest some parameters for the lists of people advocating for yes and no. Obviously not notable people (those without a Wikipedia article at all for example) shouldn't be included. As is already spelled out in a hidden note in the article, those who have spoken generally in favour or opposition of gay marriage but not specifically about the yes or no campaign in this survey should also not be included until it can be sourced that they do.

When this list grows too long as it rolls on, it may also become appropriate to split the list out into a seperate article, similar to Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. I'd also suggest not including specific quotes or rationale for their position similar to these articles, as rationale can be read in the reference. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Should the list of people include parliamentarians/members of parties separately or should these be somehow incorporated into the one section? I know there will be issues with the liberal party being neutral, but various liberals being YES and NO but it seems clunky to me. Perhaps parliamentarians/members of parties could be grouped together in the people section under a common party label and then other non parliamentarians/members of parties grouped separately? James.au (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Taking your points, I've seperated pollies and non-pollies in both yes and no cases - given their dominance in the overall individuals list. -- Whats new?(talk) 01:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Article's 'political party positions' content

The current article contains considerable detail re the views of political parties. 4.1 Official party positions 4.2.1 Yes Political parties 4.3.1 No Political parties (including possibilities, without citations) 4.4.1 Neutral Political parties. I rationalised the article, condensing the above into 4.1. I gave as the edit-explanation. "remove political parties as (1) most of this is covered (with duplicate citations) in Support and opposition - Official party positions (2) this is the people's vote, not politicians | remove − Other parties wait for cites." My modification was reverted without explanation . I believe the article needs a consolidation of these duplicated political party views. B20097 (talk) 10:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@B20097: The 'official party positions' is designed to be a summary of views of parties in the Federal parliament, where as later sections provide explanations of positions where appropriate. Not all parties need further detail and there is no need to "wait for cites." -- Whats new?(talk) 11:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Compared with the brevity of people's views, (and it is the people's vote), there are 4 sections (each too detailed & embellished with coloured boxes) discussing political-party-positions. Moreover, they each get 'top listing'. If they must go in, they should go after the people's-position. B20097 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
The article contains the following 'Importance-Template' under the sub-heading 'Political parties' >> "[importance inline|date=August 2017|reason=It is the people's vote - Why all this 'political party positions' wording? And big coloured boxes? And duplicated citations? And top billing? And what is the point being made by these sentences? - - See Talk Page sections 2, 4 and 8 all relevant, but issues unresolved -- Recommendation: De-emphasis of the politics / politicians - they have had their turn at this SSM issue ]" >> For these reasons I propose to reduce the article-content-emphasis of the 'Political parties' subsection. B20097 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The political views of parties are arguably more important and influential than most, if not all other groups or individuals, given they are directly or indirectly responsible for the commencement and the reaction to the survey. The formatting of it may have some merit, but they should undoubtedly be ordered first, and it is appropriate that they (as well as leading lobby groups) have a brief explanation of positions in my view. The fact it is the people's vote is immeterial - we are not publishing every Australian's view - only those who are notable. The people's view may not count for much if parties or individual politicians ignore the survey result anyway -- Whats new?(talk) 04:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Neutral parties/people

I previously removed the neutral section but was reverted. My issue with listing persons or organisations which are "neutral" is that it is not relevant to this survey that they are deliberately abstaining from supporting or opposing either side. This article is about the postal survey, so the fact that a person or business does not hold a position either way is not relevant here. In reverting, the editor gave the following three reasons:

  • "...(1) all surveys on this page have 'undecided' as an option..." which is not helpful because the surveys (assuming the editor means the polling) having a respondent as 'undecided' is not the same as being 'neutral.' Being undecided means a person has not made up their mind about which way to vote, where as being neutral means a person is deliberately not holding an opinion either way.
  • "(2) Neutral is more definitive statement than 'Undecided'..." which is essentially the same as above
  • "(3) Some of these organisations have said they support SSM in the past." which may be true, but this article isn't about the issues of SSM, it is about the survey. If a person or company switch from the 'yes' to 'no' campaign to 'no position' then that withdraw of support can be noted, but there's no case currently and none of the entities currently listed as 'neutral' have previously held a position in supporting this survey -- Whats new?(talk) 10:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The bulleted lists

The bulleted lists within the Support and opposition section do not belong. These meaningless dot points do not convey information. We want prose which explains things in Wikipedia voice. We hardly ever want bulleted lists which is why they rarely (if ever) appear in featured articles. It is not encyclopedic. Having a list of supporters or opponents does not tell the reader anything about the survey, does it? It is not knowledge of the topic. It will not matter in the slightest to someone in fifty years on the other side of the planet if the Anglican priest Michael Jensen did not support same sex marriage in Australia. Its trivia. We aren't here to collect trivia or document opinions. I propose these lists be removed. If anyone wants to re-add that content as prose, then go ahead. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The lists of people have been discussed in earlier sections of this talk page, but to your suggestion of removing them altogether because they are not in prose form, it is very common in Wikipedia articles to have lists, and in fact many articles are solely lists of people supporting or opposing something - see Endorsements in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, Endorsements in the United Kingdom general election, 2017 and List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 for just a few examples. Supporters and opponents are notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 07:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you see those pages are lists, while this article is not. Please follow our guidelines on embedded lists. If you moved the section I am talking about to its own separate page that is where it belongs where it may or may not survive a deletion review. It is not appropriate to embed a list on this page of trivial lists of supporters or those against. It doesn't belong on an article about the survey.
Lists like this generally do not belong on our peer reviewed articles. Having long lists like that makes the article very unbalanced. We only want prose. It is a common mistake of editors who do not view good or featured articles which is what we are aiming for. If you can't write sentences then why are you trying to add that content? Maybe a few collapsible tables if you really feel strongly about its inclusion, but that is all. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
How do we know these opinions haven't changed and someone who supports currently opposes? We would be misrepresenting someone in that instance. People change their views all the time. As such, its not our role to document them. This is why it is trivia, because the information can be false on a personal whim.
Besides all that the only opposition to this is from a vocal religious minority, as the list clearly demonstrates. It is not appropriate to feature this fringe grouping's extremist beliefs on the article so much. The article appears unbalanced by drawing attention to this tiny segment of the community and its opposition. This opposition is only based on religious ideology, nothing substantial or relevant to same sex couples who want marriage. This is why proper sentences can't be written. Because its mindless conservative disinformation. We need to be more neutral and make sure Wikipedia is not a platform for bias. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Lists are very common in Wikipedia articles, and I'd suggest that prose form is not always the most appropriate way to list information. You said "We only want prose" in your response - who is "we?" Numerous editors have contributed to this article and not one has sought to remove the lists in favour of a prose section. If a person changes their view, it can be noted their view has changed or their name removed, which occurred with the Trump endorsements article. The article is not biased - I would think that plainly obvious from the fact there is coverage of both support and opposition to the survey, and not all opposition to the survey is from a religious minority (in fact nearly every religion is opposed making it a majority) and not every opponent is advocating a 'no' vote because of religious grounds, as the article makes clear, some have concerns, rightly or wrongly, about children, freedom of speech, etc. Deliberately omitting reasons for opposition would make the article bias. I don't think any of your points are particularly strong. -- Whats new?(talk) 02:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Us. Wikipedians. The ones who work so hard to keep things right around here. The ones who follow our policy and guidelines. The ones who write in proper English. The editors who have built the best web site. Lets take a look at some other articles, how about Australia. Excessive lists, bulletted points, quotations or just clean prose? There are a few select tables and one section with dot points that could (and should) be replaced with prose. Click through to the Featured Article category and flick through any number of those FAs and you will see very few lists, bulleted points or quotations. Because it is our policy to avoid that.
If you can't write something into a proper sentence (English language) in Wikipedia's voice it almost always doesn't belong here. Some people seem very slow to understand this policy or they refuse to acknowledge it. I have not said we should not include reasons for or against. I said the list doesn't belong. Its purpose is only to emphasise debate or controversy. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Opposition >> "vocal religious minority" "fringe grouping's extremist beliefs" "drawing attention to this tiny segment of the community" "opposition based on religious ideology" "nothing substantial or relevant" "mindless conservative disinformation" Wow! There are many, in RSs who refute those opinions as POVs. Leave the NPOV list-format (without commentary) as is. If people want further information, there are the citations. B20097 (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is. The content is relevant to the public discourse about the survey, and is in an efficient form. If it gets so large to be unwieldy, lists of supporters and naysayers could always be its own article, but we're not there yet. Boneymau (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Shiftchange but I don't agree with your points of view. Sometimes lists are appropriate, as WP:PROSE explains. In this case, it arguably is and to date you are the only editor with an opposing view. Other editors aren't 'slow,' we just continue reading the whole policy which notes "there are occasions when some form of list may be appropriate." With the survey not even having opened yet, it is highly likely the list will grow ever longer and be spun out into its own article, as happened with other similar lists I pointed to earlier. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
So why is it appropriate? What is your justification? I've explained its trivia. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
I already have. A list of notable people or organisations providing support or opposition to the survey is wholly approporiate, and will almost certainly be spun off into its own article when the survey period actually begins and campaigning gets under way. Why have you not campaigned for other similar articles/sections to be deleted? Why do you specifically champion the removing of opposition groups as minorities and 'those on the fringes' - that's pure WP:BIAS. No other editor shares your position to date, and if others feel the same as you then that's fine, but until then I don't think there's justification to remove either in whole or in part. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
These organisations haven't even called for members to all vote the same way. They have just made statements. Just because some random religious organisation made public statements against something doesn't mean we have to mentions that here. We aren't under that obligation. Our obligation is here is to the relevant guideline, which is make lists on list pages as I first proposed and explained above about it not belonging here. The details need to be sorted by those who want its inclusion but not here, please. Its already unbalanced. Split now. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
How is it "unbalanced?" -- Whats new?(talk) 06:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
As User:Whats new? refers above - Why is this article different to Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 ? However, I am not against splitting it providing (1) both sides are treated equally and (2) the 'Controversies and issues' don't get lost in any re-organisation. (BTW Both the for and against groups DO each ask their members to vote one-way.) B20097 (talk)
The lists have gotten absolutely sprawling, and really need to be split into a separate page (along the lines of the one B20097 raised), and a prose summary of the important bits about each campaign written in its place. I find it a bit absurd that this article has space to mention the opinions of Killing Heidi and the Shire of Campaspe about the marriage vote, but not the Yes campaign's huge 15,000-strong Melbourne rally today (because it's not something that fits in a bullet point). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

proper noun?

I suggest that neither "Marriage Law" nor "Postal Survey" are proper nouns, and that the article title should be "Australian marriage law postal survey". Do we have references that support the capitalisation? (Likewise for Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The ABS appears to write it as such [10], as do some other government agencies [11] and an ABC article writes it that way noting "as it is formally known." [12] In any case, the name as written was approved in a move request earlier in this page -- Whats new?(talk) 13:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Mitch, that is not how grammar works. "Marriage Law" and "Postal Survey" are not, devoid of context, proper nouns, but "Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey", the specific thing we're actually talking about, is formally called such - hence, proper noun. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Controversies and issues section

The Controversies and issues section is also problematic. We aren't here to document expressed concerns. It makes this encyclopedia look ridiculous. We are not interested in what some people say might occur if something happens. It is not our role to relay these expressions with quotations. This style of editing is extremely poor. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Issues and controversies are a very significant component of the narrative, describing the 'Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey'. Paraphrasing also has its problems, along with risks of POVs creeping in. Direct quotes are direct quotes.
This article is not like, say a, "Two-stroke engine". This article involves extremely complex and deeply help personal beliefs impacting on our human-identify. The survey's development raises serious controversies and issues. The tensions (that we currently observe) need to be covered - dispassionately - in this article. Australia has struggled with all of this for years. With basically two positions / two sides - each side must try to understand the other viewpoint. However when seriously-held beliefs are categorised / ridiculed, "as nothing substantial or relevant" and "mindless conservative disinformation" that further illustrates the deep controversies and issues Australia is now facing.
Because of their importance - these issues should remain as an encyclopedic component of this SSM survey-process. At the very least - it might be possible to weave them into sections above. B20097 (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
The "Controversies and issues" section is a mess as framed: it just needs to be (as has already been suggested) weaved them into existing content (made more difficult by the article's reliance on sprawling bulleted lists). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Its not a narrative. There is no imaginary here. You are implying incorrect tone. We explain with formal tone, not narrate. Please come to terms with your fundamentalist misunderstanding of our role here. There is no automatic legitimacy to your two sides declarations. It is imaginary to think that legitimacy is conferred automatically because those views are religious or classified as deeply held. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Shiftchange, B20097 has already said he's okay with weaving the content into the sections above, and none of it wouldn't legitimately belong there anyway devoid of the controversy-section framing. Better to get it done than argue about semantics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

B20097 (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Torygreen84 - you've reverted my removal of the neo-nazi poster section, which is about a debunked media story about a single tweet. I'm not opposed to including some one sentence reference to this in some sort of media section, but something that didn't happen obviously shouldn't be given so much weight that it has its own subsection in the article, particularly under the 'activities' section. What was the activity? Poor fact-checking in the media? Interested to hear your perspective. Cheers, Cjhard (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

firstly as you should know it was not just a single tweet, I can post a tweet and I still won't put it on wikipeaida because it was not about a single tweet. it was widely in the Elite Media. secondly it was in the news much much much more then the same sex rally. also it was in the campaign. Torygreen84 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was a media story based on a single tweet. This non-occurrence received some media coverage, yes, but it didn't happen. As something that didn't happen, it's given too much weight in the article. As something that wasn't an activity, but media misreporting, it shouldn't be in the Activities section. I'll reword it to emphasise the focus on it being about the media reports, but I still advocate that it be summarised and incorporated into the prose of another section. Cjhard (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I would agree it has had undue weight in the article. Not every vague event or activity is going to be notable -- Whats new?(talk) 03:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Legislation proposed

This section is clearly going beyond a factual background and getting into issues. So it should go down to the 'Issues raised' section. Any reasonable objections? Boneymau (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I had thought that the consensus above was to try to integrate the issues section into earlier segments of the article where logical. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Not sure that was necessarily consensus, and in any case I haven't seen any proposals for how to do that effectively. I don't have any ideas. Do you? Boneymau (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
It seemed fairly clear to me as a consensus above. I have already incorporated the earlier voting process issues section into the general process section, and that was edited by someone else for repetition and clarity. I think that WP:STRUCTURE points towards trying to pull controversies out of that section and integrate it up above. Hopefully through the editing process and as more information is provided to us, we can make the article better. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you reckon now what remains in 'Issues raised' could just be a section in activities under the subheading 'Debate regarding relevance of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and children'? That's an activity that has been going on. Boneymau (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Are the 'freedom of' and the 'children' similar enough that they could be under one heading, though? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I reckon so, in that they are both tangential issues that have nothing to do with the survey. The Guardian's comment was about both matters, for example. Boneymau (talk)
Yeah, I noticed that in the G's article, too - it applies the same criticism to both issues. Give it a go and we'll see how the article looks after. Thanks for the reorganising work you've done on the article, it looks a lot better now that new material is not automatically being filed to 'issues'. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Sentences consisting solely of statements

Sentences such as X said "..." do not belong here. All of the sentences in this article which are basically quotations should be removed, except in the rarest of instances. We are to provide a concise general overview, not a list of commentary. I don't understand why this needs to be repeated or why other editors want to create articles full of trivial things that people say. When you do this it makes this encyclopedia look ridiculous and demonstrates to other editors how poorly you contribute. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

User:B20097 and possibly User:Torygreen84 are probably the most guilty of this. Take the Benjamin Law's comments sub-section for instance. It consists exclusively of his comment on Twitter and nothing else, no analysis, context or overview. This encourages others to create an additional sub-section of something equally controversial which is said on the other side of the argument. Consequently we are getting an ever growing list of virtually every triviality. It isn't a timeline either. Somehow I imagine if we left this section alone for B2 and TG to edit to their heart's content, we would have virtually every controversial thing said or done by someone even slightly linked to the yes campaign and nothing else. Jono52795 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
SC > This matter is not "trivial". Jono > Law is not, "someone even slightly linked to the yes campaign". Benjamin Law said what he said. It is disingenuous to try to sanitise his statement and WP:NOTCENSORED. The matter was reported, and commented on, in dozens of RSs. Keeping in mind, "Legislation has been passed and commenced that make it "illegal to vilify, intimidate or threaten another person based on their views during the ... survey",[144]" Analysis, context and/or overview could easily be added. ie today a "Yes" campaigner said Law made a stupid declaration B20097 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that every statement made shouldn't be added to this article, it needs context, significane and relevance, not just to be repeated in a news article -- Whats new?(talk) 00:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Summary of current laws on same-sex couples

I added a paragraph from the Recognition of same sex unions in Australia article to explain what the current laws are regarding same-sex couples, that they can only really be de factos, including sources that directly refer to the current survey. I believe it is encyclopedic to include a brief summary of the present situation as part of the background - surely it's at least as relevant as the last couple of years of political debate on if people should have a plebiscite or not. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jono52795: --122.108.141.214 (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mitch Ames:? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jono52795s edit summary that we don't need that section in this article - as Jono52795 points out, this article is about the survey in particular, not same-sex marriage in general. However I agree that Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia is relevant to the background/history of the survey, so it's definitely worth a "see also". Mitch Ames (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Mitch covers my reasons for deletion perfectly. We don't need whole slabs of text lifted from another wiki article. That's precisely what the 'see also' or 'main article' link is for, which can be added to underneath the current 'Background' section. Jono52795 (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the party. Why is a brief summary of the current options of same-sex couples in Australia not relevant to the survey? Jono, I disagree with your characterisation of my edit as 'lifting slabs of text' - I added only the current situation with reference to current sources. As it stands, the article spills more ink on the political history than what's currently possible. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've moved the recent addition of a single sentence summary so that it make sense chronologically, but I'm not sure that including the sentence at all is an improvement. As it stands, it does not seem to fit, because there's no "link" or "flow" from that sentence to the next. Possibly it could be extended slightly, eg "...centred around de facto relationships, but such relationships are not necessarily considered to be equal to marriage, either symbolically or legally." Anything more, and we're back to the original objection that it it's too much for this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Is there a recent source which says that? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The ref you cited talks about the legal issues in detail. It also alludes to symbolic importance, but this ref describes the symbolic value explicitly. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I still think we need to keep this summary of the current status short and to the point. The details ("in the event of death", "...govt depts not aware of rights") do not belong here. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not, when the survey is about allowing same sex couples to marry? I'm sorry, but it just seems absurd to me. I can appreciate not wanting the entire history of ssm in Australia on the page, as it is a big topic, but the article seems more focused on is it on style politics than serious analysis. 122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Because the article is about the survey, not SSM. If the article appears to be focused on politics, it because the survey itself is a major political issue. (Rather than simply having a parliamentary vote, as most people seem to want, Turnbull wanted to have a mandatory referendum/plebiscite, but then the Opposition wouldn't let him, so he called the postal survey, which was challenged in the High Court. Then because the survey wasn't an election, covered by the Electoral Act, they had to pass special laws to stop people being nasty to each other in the campaigning ...)
I've posted a message at WP:AWNB asking for more editors to comment.
Mitch Ames (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The survey has come about because community support for ssm has become such that if it doesn't happen through this survey and subsequent parliamentary vote, it will eventually when a Labor government gets in. The survey is about whether to grant same sex couples the right to marry, therefore an essential part of the background is what is currently enshrined in law and how it practically plays out, as has been discussed by reliable sources. Most would predate this current survey process, but the one I added relates to this survey. The current text in the article is inaccurate, as the on paper rights of a de facto couple are substantially similar, but practically there are several hurdles. In the same article, it is briefly mentioned that the current system is not as symbolic as marriage. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The survey has come about because community support for ssm has become such that if it doesn't happen through this survey ... — That makes no sense. The survey's existence can't be dependent on its outcome.
The current text in the article is inaccurate,... — per #Most of the symbolic significance of marriage? below, I've updated the paragraph again. Is the current version an accurate summary of the current status of same-sex unions. If so, please remove the {{dubious}} tag.
I suggest that we wait for opinions from other editors as to whether that paragraph - with its link to the main article - is sufficient in this context (I think it is), or whether it should be longer, or removed completely, but we should at least agree that what is there is factually correct, even if we disagree on the length or degree of detail. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
In the absence of any feedback, I've removed the {{dubious}} tag.

Most of the symbolic significance of marriage?

Per my edit, I don't think "symbolic rights" makes sense, but I also don't think that anything in the references suggests that "[same-sex] unions provide couples with most ...of the ... symbolic significance of marriage". The whole point of the references - in particular [13] is that:

  • "nothing competes with marriage for its iconic status, the symbolism that it contains",
  • "Marriage offers symbolic ... recognition. ... "
  • "the Committee heard much about the symbolic significance of marriage equality"

I think that the sentence (assuming we keep it) needs to mention the symbolic importance of marriage – hence my original wording "... such relationships are not necessarily considered to be equal to marriage, either symbolically or legally" – but it seems to me that in this context the whole point is same-sex unions do not have the same symbolic value of marriage. I propose changing the second sentence in the paragraph to 

These unions provide couples with most, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage, but do not have the same symbolic significance.

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Marriage_Law_Postal_Survey/Archive_1&oldid=1065774956"