We should probably adjust/refine the heading here; we obviously only want activities actually connected to the campaign, and not things that just happened to occur at the same time. I removed the Ballarat wedding issue, as that was only tangentially connected to the campaign. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
User:StAnselm I've reverted your good faith deletion of the wedding cancellation. You say you want things "actually connected" to the campaign and not "tangentially". Fair enough, I personally think this whole section is far too long and full of trivial details. That being said, it is a little hard to justify deleting the wedding cancellation but keeping say, Benjamin Law's comments. Both could be said to be only tangentially connected to the survey, but both have attracted reasonable media attention. I think we should use this section on the talk page to try to resolve queries regarding if any existing or future sub-section under the Activities heading should be included. Pinging User:Mitch Ames, User:B20097, User:Whats new?, User:Cjhard, User:Torygreen84
Oh, absolutely. I think it needs to be drastically pruned - that's why I started this discussion - the scope of the section needs to be refined. The Law comment is not directly related to the survey either. StAnselm (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad we can agree that this whole section needs to be scaled back. On the emerging edit war, WP:STATUSQUO says "if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor." The wedding cancellation has been there for days, on that basis we leave it until consensus to remove is achieved. As it happens, I think it probably should be deleted, but any justification for its removal is likely to be be able to be applied to several other headings in the section. Can we at least wait a few hours to see if other users I've pinged have a view? Jono52795 (talk) 07:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey#Activities during the campaign is getting a bit long, and we probably need to limit it to the most significant (while maintaining neutrality), per WP:NOTNEWS. How we define the limits is much harder to say. Personally I'd remove "ABC talkback caller's Hitler comments", "Benjamin Law's comments", "Bulimba 4 Marriage Equality assault", "Flyers targeting local elections", "Wedding cancelled" - all of which are minor incidents that have very little impact on anyone other than those directly involved, and no-one will remember them in a month or two. Similarly I'd remove "Incident outside a Brisbane church", which was apparently somewhat of a non-event.[1] Ideally we'd have some overall guideline, rather than having to judge each individual sub-section or incident on its merits, but coming up with that that guideline might be difficult. (There would be certain irony in calling for an RfC on this.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with a higher regard for what is significant activity in the campaign. Short term, I think it could be feasible to have a prose section which groups together similar elements rather than a section per event, eg. Flyers, Free TV, posters could be mentioned in one line under "Advertising" or "Marketing", Hitler, Benjamin Law under "Comments made", and Children, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Wedding cancelled under "Freedoms" or something. All issues in one or two sentences under a sub-heading, no detail (that's what the references are for) just a bare-bones summary in broad groups. After the survey is done, it might be easier to trim when there's a comprehensive list of topics - eliminating certain things now might risk edit wars and the like which isn't productive -- Whats new?(talk)00:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea at all User:Whats new?. Condenses the section in the short term without removing text which will likely cause an edit war. I dare say in a few months when the survey is over we can more readily come to a consensus as to what in the section is actually noteworthy. Remember, Wikpedia is not a newspaper. In any case, for now I'd split the section into:
Media and advertising (ABC caller, advertising, flyers, freeTV, standards for ABC)
I would think even one paragraph should be sufficient. Much of these topics will likely be removed altogether at some point after the survey, and most should be nothing more than a simple mention within a sentence or paragraph, along with semi-related topics. The citations accompanying them should provide the specifics of the event. -- Whats new?(talk)03:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A paywalled reference isn't justification to add further content on an issue, but a secondary supporting reference which is unpaywalled (and likely less comprehensive which is why the paywalled version shouldn't always be replaced) is always welcome where available -- Whats new?(talk)06:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- all that is absolutely true. It is an imperative that Wiki editors provide their best NPOV paraphrasing of RS citations, particularly out of respect for those who do not have paywall access to those cites. This becomes even more critical if the article paraphrasing is to be further condensed. The issue is not "adding content". It is "subtracting content". B20097 (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
User:TenorTwelve: Reverted your deletion of the ABC Hitler comments heading, which if you justified by saying "Not productive discussion; neither does this represent the views of the "No" campaign." Productive? That's a subjective assessment and representative of the no campaign? Probably not but I could say the same of the Sydney University rally, Benjamin Law's comments and pretty much anything else in that section. Discuss here and try to achieve resolution before deleting large slabs of text. Jono52795 (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The section referencing Hitler only inflames and is not productive discussion. It also misrepresents the views of the "No" campaign. Yes, this verbal act of condoning the violent homophobia and genocidal campaigns of the Nazi regime must be unequivocally condemned. However, this is a red herring in the debate. The "No" Campaign's embrace of homophobia is not genocidal or murderous and simply cannot be compared with the atrocities of the Nazi regime. Please remove that section. TenorTwelve (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Who is the arbiter of "productive discussion User:TenorTwelve? The section does not, in the slightest way, infer that the caller's statement is reflective in any way of the offical no campaign. This whole activities section is SO OBVIOUSLY NOT reflective of the official campaigns, rather it has evolved into an overview of virtually every Media-covered Report relevant to the issue/argument/discussion about SSM during the survey. Now I'm not a fan of that, I've called for this who.e section to be removed, but as far as I can see what's occurring at the moment is selective editing, where only the things/reports that might upset 'no' supporters are being deleted. Jono52795 (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Jono52795: >> The section does not, in the slightest way, infer that the caller's statement is reflective in any way of the official no campaign. While my view on: >> This whole activities section is SO OBVIOUSLY NOT reflective of the official campaigns. >> is, Why does it have to be? B20097 (talk)
The sections, 8.10 'Freedom of speech and freedom of religion' and 8.7 'Children' are possibly the most important inclusions. Sections 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.8, 8.11, 8.12, 8.13, 8.14, 8.15 and 8.16, each for a significant reason, also provide deep insights into events involving the 'primary players', who are "actually connected" to the 'Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey' activities. For instance, both 8.5 Benjamin Law and 8.16 Tim Minchen's verbal abuse directed at "No" voters, provide clear examples, which relate to the anti-abuse legislation which was was rushed through. Had, for instance, someone on the "No" side said those things that should equally be spotlighted. The 8.1 'Hitler comment', 8.9 'Local election flyers and the 8.17 'Use of Meghan Trainor's image' and the 8.18 'Wedding cancellation incident' are all marginal inclusions, (1) primarily because they each largely involve non-notable people and (2) which 'happened to occur' within the postal survey period. In terms of providing an encyclopedic documentation of the 'Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey' activities this Section 8 information is more insightful than, say, the documented twitter-endorsement by assorted rock bands. Notable activities, good or bad, by either the "Yes" or the "No" groups are equally candidates for inclusion. The Section 8 'Activities "during" the campaign' should be retained, more or less in its current form. B20097 (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This is an attempt at some serious selective editing by editors associated with the "No" campaign. The Hitler comment (and the neo-Nazi posters) in no way implies (here or elsewhere) that it was representative of the official No campaign, but was fairly widely reported as a serious example of the kind of hate being directed at the gay community during the postal survey. Both are a bloody lot more notable than Benjamin Law's tweet - and attempts to take them out look like a concerted PR effort to paint the No campaign as victims. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I probably should stop editing here. Although I support the yes campaign, I may be screwing stuff up as an American Christian queer. I only have selective access to Australian news cycles and my own instincts from my own Christian American LGBT experience was that it could get "no"/undecided voters mad and stop listening. However, I was stupid in attempting to intervene in a country not my own as I don't fully know the culture and attempts to influence politics in countries not my own is arguably colonization. I don't know what the national reaction was or if my comment was necessary or if my edits backfire. I should let LGBTI Australians run the show. I need to back out. I am sorry for disrupting the conversation. (Note: I don't apologize for condemning Hitler; I apologize for trying to alter the conversation from a different country and likely hurting the cause I support in the process. ) TenorTwelve (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry---I basically had an emotional breakdown as I was posting. If I do post, I'll make sure to do it responsibly. But ultimately, this is about Australian voices. TenorTwelve (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The solution for this section is to just shred it down to a few summary sentences. None of the details matter unless you have an agenda. This article is about the survey, not what was said in its lead up or what someone tweeted. If what was said or done cannot be summarised into a sentence without a lazy copy and paste of the quote, then do not include it. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Restructuring article: '[8] Activities during the campaign'
The above discussions are moving towards a consensus on article restructuring, with abbreviated wordings. However the 'flow' of the above TP paras had become a bit 'tangled'. For these reasons I have started this clean TP section.
To ensure the process is undertaken methodically and fairly, I propose that any restructuring is done in four stages.
1 Place an appropriate Template_message under the existing '[8] Activities during the campaign' heading to alert readers and editors that restructuring is taking place.
2 Wiki editors come to consensus on the new structure. I propose we firstly consider the headings put forward by User:Jono52795 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)- [8.1] Media and advertising (ABC caller, advertising, flyers, freeTV, standards for ABC) - [8.2] Freedoms (advocacy, law, children, freedom speech/religion) - [8.3] Events and incidents (pretty much everything else) - Condense them to no more than a few paragraphs per sub-heading would be my suggestion. Jono52795 (talk) 02:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
3 When the new article structure is agreed (on this TP), then transform the article, '[8] Activities during the campaign' into that structure. Initially with nothing added or deleted. Then commence the abbreviation process.
4 Progressively work through the new '[8] Activities during the campaign' seeking a consensus on the new abbreviated wordings - methodically and fairly.
I support this course of action and would like to see the first two steps being undertaken, as well as the headings and respective text underneath (8.1, 8.2, 8.3). Jono52795 (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Stage 2 - To make start on this, I have placed the current 18 sub-sections under the new section headings - temporarily retaining the original numbering as an audit trail. Worthwhile now to reflect on this sequencing - before we get to any wording thereof. Of the three issues, I believe [8.2] Freedoms has become the most significant. And possibly 8.5 and 8.16 could be moved to Events and Incidents.
[8.1] Media and advertising (ABC caller, advertising, flyers, freeTV, standards for ABC)
Article Activities during the campaign now updated as per agreed restructure - nothing added or subtracted, other that the 'Ambox' template removed. B20097 (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, now to remove the sub-headings within the 3 sections by removing most content so we're left with a few paragraphs at most. As a start, in Freedoms, I'd dump nearly everything from the first two sections on governments, with a sentence to the effect of 'several local governments are actively supporting SSM including using taxpayers/ratepayers funds.' Remaining sub-sections would be much better served by removing every quote and any line that starts with "Person X says..." or "Group Y have said..." -- Whats new?(talk)06:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Within Activities during the campaign > As requested, have removed all the H4 headings.
In response to the request, "I'd dump nearly everything from the first two sections on governments, with a sentence to the effect of 'several local governments are actively supporting SSM including using taxpayers/ratepayers funds." 283 words 'dumped' and replaced with 11 words. (content reduced by 96 per cent). That type of 'revisionism' would result in the 'dumping' of significant volume of important insights and information.
As for "removing every quote" - WP:QUOTE "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called "quotes"—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words".
How do you paraphrase, the very serious assertions that, "No" voters are "bigoted cunts" and/or "No" MPs should be "hate-fuck[ed]"? - keeping in mind WP:NOTCENSORED.
Incidentally, currently within this article: Words above Activities during the campaign = 3614. Words below Activities during the campaign = 2680. B20097 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
You were the one arguing that literal Nazi threats should be taken out. If we included what everyone said on Twitter about the survey, we'd be here all year - and you'd be horrified at the depth and severity of what what would be included from No supporters. We don't selectively include trivial stuff because it suits the opinion you want to drive. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"If we included what everyone said on Twitter about the survey, we'd be here all year." Sorry - that type of comment is not worthy of a response.
"You were the one arguing that literal Nazi threats should be taken out". No. No. No. I made the point that the 'Hitler phone call' came from 'a not-notable caller identified (only) as Don. It was argued, by others, not to include non-notable people. [For more on 'Nazis' and 'non-notable people' refer above Neo-Nazi posters bearing links to Iron March and Australian Traditional Nationalist again I commented - but did no more than that, in either 'Nazi' case]. On the other hand, both Benjamin Law (as a journalist he would have known the impact of his words) and Tim Minchin (with carefully constructed song-lyrics and with 4 million hits) are both high profile people. Dozens of RS citations for both. Shame on anyone from either side who uses that type of language to try to insult people. B20097 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The text needs to be reduced much more. WP:QUOTE doesn't say you must use quotes - it says they can sometimes be better than your own words. This section uses WAY too many quotes unnecessarily. The text below, my summary of the "Advocacy in territory/local govt," is more along the lines of what I envision, cutting out "this person said [quote]" and "in response this person said [quote]." Provide a summary with citations, and if people want more detail, that's the citations are for. It removes things like "Overton-Clarke said [quote]," "buses were covered in rainbows," "Tony Abbott asked [quote]" and the reference to Brisbane Council choosing not to advocate either way (which isn't relevant to an advocacy section since they chose not to!) -- Whats new?(talk)01:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly[1][2] and several local governments such as the City of Sydney[3] have actively taken official positions supporting the "yes" campaign, including restricting public servants from some campaigning activities in uniform[4] or using taxpayers or ratepayers funds for campaigning, posters, art and events.[5]
This has been criticised by some opposition members within respective governments[6] as well as people and organisations within the council areas that do not support same-sex marriage.[7][8] The City of Darebin backed down on plans to restrict "no" campaigners from using council facilities while allowing "yes" campaigners the use of facilities at no charge.[9][10]
Please see Notability and Wikipedia:Too much detail. Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
That is getting nowhere very quickly. The article is still going in the completely wrong direction. One editor who I have repeatedly asked not to, continuously injects quotations and statements about what was said about things. The answer is a blanket removal of all sentences that consist solely of quotations, as I suggested days ago. If I do it, it is likely it will be instantly reverted. Others editors should collaborate with me and remove the copy and pasted quotations and all the trivial, insignificant things that have propagated into this article. I would strongly support shredding this article back to a bare minimum to nullify the trivia, bias and news reporting. Do this, strong, hard cuts of User:B20097's useless contributions here, as well as anything similar elsewhere by them and similar editors. Just take the quote cruft out, delete it. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Before I respond to the matter of the 'content', and with great respect, I am not sure User:Shiftchange is the best person to make impartial and objective decisions about the content here. Some examples of his reasoning:
I'd suggest we all play the ball (i.e. the arguments people are making), not the man (i.e. who is making them), to use an AFL metaphor. Boneymau (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The way forward is to remove all sentences about what was said about the survey, as this is trivial. A blanket removal is the solution to fixing this article. In the same way that it doesn't matter what was said about any other subject of our articles, it does not matter what the ACL, for example, said about the survey or same-sex marriage. If a limited set of quotations are to be included they must be specifically justified. The only quotation I would support including in this article is from a peak body representing same sex attracted peoples in Australia. This is because that is the most relevant speech in relation to the subject of the article. It doesn't matter how many media releases or statements an organisation like the ACL makes, as the issues is not religious in nature. The survey article doesn't fall into any religious categories. I'm waiting for other editors to think objectively about the topic and to support me on this. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Objectively, I don't think that is an appropriate way forward. Removing most quotes is what is needed, because the citations complete the story, but specifically targeting the removal of quotes based on if they're religious or not is inappropriate. -- Whats new?(talk)05:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
If a limited set of quotations are to be included they must be specifically justified. The only quotation I would support including in this article is from a peak body representing same sex attracted peoples in Australia. — What is the specific quotation and the specific justification? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Got to any Featured Article for a non-cultural work and you will find a limited set of quotations. They don't belong. The especially don't belong on an article like this. We do not care what was said about the survey or what some random organisation said about the survey. This is considered trivial in almost all circumstances and you will find this to be the case across our encyclopedia. I am asking we follow our policy on notability and the guideline of using prose so the article isn't long and detailed, like a newspaper. We were warned of ideologues. We should be more sensitive and make sure Wikipedia is not co-opted. I have not sort to find a specific quotation. After the event occurs and we can look back with hindsight we could add a few more quotations in review. Parroting what was said is what scribes do. It is not what Wikipedians do. Please support my strong trimming back. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Good grief. Yes, you have my support, Shiftchange. We do not need to mention every little thing that happens during the campaign, and they definitely don't need their own headings. Everything under the broad heading "Activities during the campaign" needs to be trimmed back, at least by half and probably by more. Frickeg (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Some editors of this page are in cloud cuckoo land. It explains why they want to keep reinserting what was said or thought about the survey, rather than information about the survey itself. In their imagination what was said is reality and therefore must be inserted. In actual fact, specific quotations referring to our article's subjects are most often trivia. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The community and organisational responses and reactions to the survey are as encyclopedic as the survey itself. To many Australians these issues are not trivia. B20097 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Following your earlier advice, I longer use quotations (despite WP:QUOTE). What are the 'quotations referring to our article's subjects' to which you refer ? B20097 (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is looking much better. I was speaking to the broader situation the project must deal with. How about this one "It is an historic fact that interest rates have always gone up under Labor governments over the last 30 years, because Labor governments spend more than they collect and drive budgets into deficit ... So it will be with a Latham Labor government... I will guarantee that interest rates are always going to be lower under a Coalition government." It was on the John Howard page. Oops. Looks like there is some trimming of propaganda and political message which are required to be removed from Wikipedia. We are not surrogates. Remember, military precision and all of it. Join me. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you re the inappropriateness of that massive, statement / quotation. But I am not sure what that has to do with me, as I have never edited any of the John Howard article and have never used anything like that enormous quote. B20097 (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Awesome. Earlier in this thread, I thought we were going to have another one of those "but this quote is important" discussions. We haven't. :) I also agree that community and organisational responses and reactions should be noted. We have a whole section on freedom of religion. Here is a page where the focus is on the debate. Maybe you could pay attention to characteristics instead of attributes that are provided by others. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is clearly misleading by greatly exaggerating the negative reaction to organisations who advocate for a 'yes' vote (for instance, only a handful of the AMA's large number of members have complained according to various media articles) and not noting any positive reaction. I've removed the section. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
A Canberra bus marked with a rainbow as a sign of support from the ACT Government for the city's LGBTIQ community during the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey period Nick-D, sorry the issue raised by User:SpikeToronto is that the section needs to be "counterbalanced by discussions about the advocacy that has been occasioned within these orgs by the “yes” side" for a NPOV. "Not noting any positive reaction" is not a reason to remove the entire section. Simply removing the section in-total, is an inappropriate way to achieve a NPOV. You say "only a handful of the AMA's large number of members have complained according to various media articles" (Actually 'The Australian' cite says "651 doctors"). The response within the other organisations quoted, is not-insignificant, so I can not agree re the "greatly exaggerating" characterisation. I have re-instated and reworded the references to AMA. I would be pleased to assist in further re-drafting this section.
Shiftchange removed the wording with an explanation, "Endorsements covered on seperate page, this is about the survey, not what others think about the survey". This Activities during the campaign issue is that of employees/members responses to unsolicited statements made on their behalf by the organisation. As it is not "covered on the Endorsements page", I have moved it there. Possibly the image showing the ACT Gov's "Yes" endorsement should be moved also? B20097 (talk) 01:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Why remove it? The article states that the ACT Government is supporting the 'yes' case, and the image illustrates this. This particular form of advocacy has been covered in the local Canberra media. If you have a PD image of something illustrating how advocates fpr the 'no' case are campaigning, by all means add it - the article is under-illustrated. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I never said "remove it". I have added the bus image to the Endorsement page.
The article should include (a few sentences at most) some exploration of how the survey and associated debate are a confected moral panic much the same as anti-interracial marriage was opposed in the past overseas and like how the fake controversy arose over the Safe School Coalition anti-bullying program. So instead of focusing on the silly trivia that has no consequence, such as Sheldon receiving unsolicited mail, it should be focusing more on the bigger picture issues relevant to the survey and the people it directly affects. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The background section provides an overview of how the survey came into being - having originally been envisioned by the govt as a compulsory plebiscite, then a postal survey if the senate again rejected the plebiscite, then the process by which the govt created it by advanced directions, and the role of the AEC and Senate Committee in updating the roll and monitoring the survey process respectively. The circumstances by which something is created and then monitored constitute the background. To start making assessments of the survey as "a confected moral panic" and bringing in criticisms of other people's critiques of Safe Schools would surely run afoul of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, considering some people would likely have a different view of those things than you do. Consider it from the perspective on a non-Australian who doesn't closely follow the debate, do you really need to know all the different opinions of the survey's justification, or would you instead reasonably expect a Background section to detail only the process of how it came into being (ie: why its being held in the first place). Going down your path, even if just "a few sentences", would likely run us into the exact same problems we spent so much time trying to avoid and subsequently remove (intricate detail, excess trivia, squabbling over balance) in the activities section. That is precisely why unsolicited mail sent to ACL and "Sheldon" (I presume you mean Lyle Shleton?) isn't mentioned. I respectfully disagree, and FWIW, I personally agree with your characterisation of Safe Schools as "fake controversy" and the objections to marriage equality as "moral panic". I just won't allow my personal views to get in the way of ensuring wikipedia remains neutral and doesn't become a long, difficult to read Newspaper. Jono52795 (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Consider that a non-Australian might ask why an elected government is surveying the public for their opinion instead of voting in Parliament. Although I am not overly fond of background sections I believe they should be as wide in scope as possible, to ensure comprehensiveness as per WP:BCLASS. Our role is to provide all significant viewpoints. If there is more analysis forthcoming from reliable sources that characterises events related to the survey as a moral panic, or similar, it should be included. What I am suggesting to be touched upon is not uncommon. I think we will have sources for this because of the following.
Concerns are abundant. We can see this presented in the editing style I just fought to remove. Persecution of LGBTI by religious right is well-documented. Hostility is evident in media reports. We can see the trend towards hostility on display here. Consensus is weak. However the religious right or "moral entrepreneurs" have been vocal. Disproportionality is evidenced in the rhetoric, slippery slopes arguments, concerns for children and whatnot. The survey will be over soon so its likely volatility will be on display not long after the results are announced.
I wasn't suggesting adding anything more about Safe Schools. Anything I add along these lines would be brief, neutral and well-sourced, like I always strive to do. The background section is quite strong and we have History of same-sex marriage in Australia so I do get your drift, so to speak. I understand it would be prudent to not engage in this until the results are announced. Also, keep up your great work here. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your level-headed response. I may have been a bit forceful in my response, and I apologize if that was the case. Certainly I'd be happy to see what you have in mind either now/soon or after this whole survey is over. Can't imagine it would instigate an edit war or drift too far from the subject material if it were brief and neutral. Cheers. Jono52795 (talk) 02:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Not at all. Be assertive. Be bold. Through your weight around. Its your duty. We fight for what we are most proud of and most grateful for. I've rounded out the background section. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that an important point that is missing from the background is that although on paper the rights of de facto (same-sex) couples are similar to those of married couples, in practice that is not the case. This discrepancy has been discussed multipletimesin reliable sources during the time period of the survey and earlier. I think this informs the background to the issue and is too important a point to be left solely to the Recognition of same-sex couples article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
... an important point that is missing from the background is that although on paper the rights of de facto (same-sex) couples are similar to those of married couples, in practice that is not the case — That point is not missing from the Background/History section, it is stated explicitly in the first paragraph: "Same-sex unions ... are treated as de facto unions ... with most, though not all, of the legal rights of marriage". The details of the difference between same-sex/de facto and legal marriage, however, are not within the scope of this article. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why you consider that to be explicit enough, when there is no mention of the gap between the legal situation on paper and what actually happens in practice. I regard this "detail" to be an essential part of the background of the issue, and therefore within the scope of this article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to why you consider that to be explicit enough — You said that the point "the rights of ... (same-sex) couples ... in practice [are not the same as married couples]" was missing from the background section; I pointed out that the background section does explicitly state that the rights are not the same. I agree that the statement that "same-sex couples don't have the same rights as married couples" is important to the background, and that statement is there. However the details - a list of the various differences between the two types of couples - is not within the scope of this article about the survey. It belongs in the more specific Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia article. We've covered this before, in #Summary of current laws on same-sex couples above. If you feel sufficiently strongly about it, perhaps raise an RfC. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The point made by the reliable sources is that there is a gap between what the rights of a defacto couple are on paper and how they are implemented. This is not the same as defacto status not conferring all the rights of marriage. The gap between paper and reality in the legal rights of gay defacto couples is a salient fact to the background of this article in addition to the recognition article because the no campaign keeps repeating that same sex couples already have all the same rights as a married couple, as the sources I have provided demonstrate, despite this being an exaggerated claim. Are rfcs open to unregistered wikipedians? 122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I think I see your point - it's not just that same-sex/de facto couples don't have the same legal rights, but that the legal rights that they do have are not always recognised. Is this better? (Note that I still think that the specifics of what rights they're missing, and/or what rights they have on paper but not in practice, is beyond the scope of this article.) Mitch Ames (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is an Easter egg - the text "Same-sex unions in Australia" linking to "Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia" is hardly a surprise, coming immediately after a sentence defining heterosexual marriage, in an article about a survey about changing the definition of marriage. We could try
but I not sure that "recognised" implies that same thing as "treated" here, and it seems to be stretching the scope of the linked text unnecessarily (see WP:NOPIPE, 1st bullet point). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
The incident didn't relate to media nor advertising. The song was one of many performed by an artist, chosen completely unrelated to the survey, for an event that has nothing to do with the survey. There isn't any relevance here apart from Abbott and others criticising it as something it wasn't. -- Whats new?(talk)23:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
This article has a major, ongoing problem (and certainly not just from B20097 and his allies) that people keep randomly sticking in their pet opinion in whatever random shape they feel like throwing it, only caring that they got their piece in, and expecting other editors to clean up the mess.
I have absolutely no problem with the Macklemore story going in this article - as long as it's portrayed in an NPOV way - rather than being just "what the No campaign said about Macklemore" in an effort to paint it as a one-sided "controversy". For instance, a NPOV treatment would have given more broader context than "Tony Abbott's feelings about Macklemore": as one example (among the myriad of choices it could have referred to), it might have brought up George Brandis' widely-cited response to Abbott. It certainly should have quoted Macklemore's comments (!), if you're going to include the event. This attitude of "well, I threw in my opinion, other editors should clean it up" needs to stop.
I didn't write the Tiernan Brady sentence, but it's perfectly reasonable to include a prominent Yes campaign response to an ad that received wide airplay. But even that example highlights the point I'm trying to make, though: the Brady quote is in answer to a sentence which states...that the ad was based on a children's book and featured the same people as the previous advertisement. What did the ad claim that Brady was outraged at? Who knows? I have no idea which side wrote that, but it's another example of someone going "right, I want to get X detail in the article, context be damned". The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
I've reinstated the anon editor's paragraph about Macklemore: that particular saga is much more critical to the telling of the campaign than a lot of content in the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
The event, the singer and the song have nothing to do with the Survey. A handful of people criticising something unrelated, attempting to make a meaningful link, is not notable -- Whats new?(talk)21:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I understand that the way I initially wrote the paragraph may violate NPOV, but the event was notable as an activity during the campaign, it was televised to a large audience, and media outlets reported on it widely. Media sources, not Wikipedia editors, linked the performance to the survey. The current version, similar to what I wrote in the Grand Final article, simply summarises the event and why Australian media deemed it relevant. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's naive to dismiss it as having "nothing to do with the survey": his initial booking probably, I would imagine, did have nothing to do with it, but the attempts to stop him performing and the very substantial amount of press it got did turn out to be one of the key events of the campaign. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I take your point The Drover's Wife that the campaign, if only by a few, to prevent the performance specifically in relation to the survey has merit. I'd disagree its a "key event" and don't think its officially part of any "campaign." Reliable sources demonstrate his booking occured months before the survey was even enacted, so any suggestion the NRL or Yes campaign booked him as a pro-SSM event is rubbish. I fear this it is still borderline WP:NOTNEWS. And B20097, consensus is not achieved by vote. -- Whats new?(talk)07:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting for a minute that his booking had anything to do with anything relating to the survey: you're arguing against a point not being made. In the here and now, it is notable based on the fact it had huge coverage in reliable sources, but far from being a WP:NOTNEWS case: although it's far too early for retrospective analysis, I strongly suspect it's going to be seen as a bit of a turning point in the campaign, because the Yes campaign (and the whole tone of the survey press coverage) got a hell of a lot less despondent after the way it played out. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
You may be right about that, time will tell. For the reasons you've outlined, and with the rewrite, it may be best to leave in for now and revisit down the track -- Whats new?(talk)03:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Daily Mail source
It's come to my attention Wikipedia banned Daily Mail as a reliable source earlier this year (see here). I've consequently removed this reference) which covers vandalism and abuse. FWIW I consider the article to be a diligently researched. On that basis I'd prefer its inclusion but am not interested in violating wiki policy. Feel free to discuss. Jono52795 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Stickers on mailbox
Stickers on mailbox
Hi @Freikorp:, I think it is a kind of original research to interpret these stickers as a call for a boycott, because I think it's too far of a stretch from what we can actually see on the postbox. (As the stickers don't mention a boycott at all, I think this is perhaps an 'unpublished idea'.) I think the stickers are far more likely to be variants on a 'no junk mail' sticker, as discussed here on pedestrian.tv. I have altered the text visible under the image to hopefully be a bit more descriptive of the image, rather than interpreting them too much without interviewing the letterbox owners. I would appreciate your thoughts. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the sticker do not call for a boycott. However I think that even saying that the "Stickers on mail boxes [are] showing support for marriage equality" is WP:OR because we don't know that those stickers on those mailboxes are there to support marriage equality. Yes the cited ref says that they could be, but the site that sells them does not mention their purpose other than describing them as "no hate mail". There has been material from both sides that could be considered "hate" speech (Tim Minchin referred to the "No" side as "bigoted cunts", which could be considered hateful), so declaring that you don't want hate mail does not necessarily mean that you support marriage equality, merely that you don't want hate mail from either side. Deducing that the rainbow flag implies support for marriage equality is, of course, WP:SYN. I suggest that the image caption should be limited to "Stickers on mail boxes asking for no anti-equality or hate mail" - because that's what the stickers explicitly say. (Of course then the caption is redundant, so perhaps it should be alt-text instead.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm - thanks @Mitch Ames:. I didn't think that it was an unpublished idea to say that the stickers support marriage equality, because of the heart and the rainbows and the text saying 'no anti-equality mail'. I had thought that they were widely enough understood iconography for it to not be original research. The cite I provided only covers the sticker on the lower-left of the postbox. Does alt text replace captions if the caption is as purely descriptive as it can be? (Given that this is an original image showing stickers on a postbox.) --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
PS: You may have missed the artist's statement on the sale page: "Due to the government’s insistence to allow anti-equality groups to shout hatred into your letterbox, these stickers are intended to keep the bigots at bay!" --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
After reading those sources I agree the stickers weren't calling for a boycott; that was my assumption, my apologies. I just noticed the stickers popping up in my street and thought taking photos of them would improve the article. As the sources indicate they are clearly in support of marriage equality though. Freikorp (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It's an original image used in the article. I thought the caption that was initially put on the page was inaccurate, and I was using the talk page to double-check and find alternative wording. The issue of pamphleteering and other hate mail has been raiseda couple of times that I can immediately find, but was removed from the main article a few weeks ago after the events page was refactored. The picture was taken in the hopes that it would improve the article, and this discussion has been about making sure the caption is accurate and meeting appropriate WP guidelines. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It is an original image that is clearly about the subject of the article, and I have provided a source which directly discusses one of the stickers used in the photo. Surely it falls under MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE instead of notability? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Griffith University Twitter analytics study predicting possible very close vote with no slightly in the lead.....
Ok. I am wondering if this should be mentioned under the opinion polling section.
Recently, there was a Griffith University Big Data and Smart Analytics Lab Twitter analytics study adjusted to the age of the people Tweeting suggesting No will win 50.83%-49.17%. (An article on the study is linked here: [1])
Here is what it analyzed: Based on 458,565 Tweets, it found that 72% of Tweets on Twitter were in favor of the Yes campaign.
However, many users Tweeted multiple times. It found the number of unique users reduced to 207,287.
Of these 207,287 users, it was analyzed that 57% of unique users supported the Yes campaign; whereas, 43% of unique users supported the No campaign.
HOWEVER, it was found that there were age discrepancies of who uses Twitter. It was observed that less than 15% of the total Tweets were sent by people over 55. Of the people surveyed over 55, only 34% expressed support for Yes. ABS has indicated that people over 55 constitute 36% of eligible voters. The Griffith University study made a calculation based on the observation that older voters tend to vote in higher numbers than younger voters and factored into their calculation that younger people were overrepresented in the Twitter analytics.
It made the calculation that it would be a closer result than polling had suggested with a result of 50.83-49.17% with No leading....
The study has acknowledged that it is not necessarily a definitive result, HOWEVER, this same process accurately predicted that Donald Trump would win the US Presidential Election when pollsters everywhere were saying Hillary Clinton would win.
This process acknowledges that when people are phone-asked people might be reluctant to speak their mind, but are more "honest" in the statements they make online.
(pardon this sentence's POV) As a person who supports the Yes campaign, this study absolutely terrified me when I first saw it. In the days following after seeing it, I ignored it, partially for mental health reasons and to have a good day. I hate to be the one to break this news if this is the case. However, as an American observer, I might not have the right perspective on this.
I am wondering if this should be included in the opinion polling section or another locale in the article. Should we wait until the results?
I am just worried that there may be a polling-result discrepancy shock to Yes voters if this is the case and was wondering if we should warn people in advance. Or should we just let conversation play out and not terrify too early? Granted a Yes win is still definitely possible and the pre-existing polls overwhelmingly saying Yes will win and this shouldn't be ignored/forgotten. Should this be mentioned? If so, when and where?
Thanks and stay well. Remain respectful and remember there are many who support you.
I would be against including this. It is not a statistically reliable sample like Newspoll, Essential, etc which surveys a random sample of people. This research only incorporated people who may use Twitter, based on people who tweeted on this issue. People using Twitter is not represented in the broader population like phone and online survey methodologies tend to be, so I would not be in favour of including this alongside mainstream polling. This type of sampling may have had success in America, but that is a very different system (not accustomed to compulsory voting, not conducted by post, etc). It is interesting, sure, but not as statistically meaningful as others. -- Whats new?(talk)01:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you'd be hard-pressed to include this on any Australian election article (national election or state election), as it simply doesn't stack up with certified, statistically weighted opinion polling. It's unusual in the Australian context. It hardly qualifies as "Public Opinion" and I'm not sure where or how it would fit in that section given it's a list of all the polls on the survey conducted. However, given all these polls show a comfortable yes victory, if "No" were to win (which I personally would be very surprised at), absolutely we should find some space in the article to include this study (perhaps create a new section). If No wins, then the authors of the study will have been right and literally EVERY SINGLE poll would have wrong by a huge margin. Intriguing. It would elevate the importance I place on the social desirability bias to a level I never though possible. Jono52795 (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
If there's a yes response, should this article cover the differences between the two draft bills that are going to be presented? (Dean Smith's will reportedly be tabled on Thursday, and James Paterson's... who knows?) Is that part of the aftermath of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey? At present, the legislation section has been updated to say that there are two bills in the running, and the external links section has links to the full text of each bill. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yep. There's already a section which would be appropriate for discussion of the two bills and Parliament's response to them; which will likely be presented to the Senate on Thursday, if Yes wins. That's the "Aftermath" section, currently hidden along with the "Results" section. Once the results are announced, those hidden sections should be revealed and we can use the Aftermath section (specifically the sub-section titled "Marriage Amendment Act") to provide an overview as to what happens to those bills (or one of them if it's only Smith's bill that the Senate passes with amendments, which is what I suspect will happen). Just keep in mind that we shouldn't go overboard and detail every minute detail of progression, as the bill itself will almost certainly get its own wiki page due to its likely notoriety. FWIW, other sub-section under "Aftermath" is "Analysis of results", which can be used if necessary to detail some of the responses to to the results from high profile figures/groups, kind of like the similar section for the Irish referendum article. Jono52795 (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
"LGBTIQ"
"LGBTIQ" should be changed to "lesbian, gay, and bisexual" or "LGBT" if we must. "LGBTIQ" is just trendy feel-good nonsense that frankly makes a mockery of sexual minorities. Also, this legislation has no bearing on gender identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:D86:9620:F1B0:939C:62C1:BDD1 (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Participation rate in "State and territory breakdown" table
I think that the participation rate should be included in "State and territory breakdown" table, just like in "Electorate breakdown" one. Ron 1987 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. 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.
