Talk:Australian Marriage Equality

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

Explanation about full marriage equality section edits.[edit]

The sections detailing views on alternate forms of marriage has been added to detail the known views of the AME with regards to certain minority groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.7.131 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Detailing AME's view regarding minor it groups is fine providing the references mention AME. References that do not mention the articles subject however should not be used in the article. Wikipedia is not an opinion site, it is not appropriate to list opinions for or against what the articles subject is arguing for unless they mention AME by name. I am removing all the references that do not mention AME. Freikorp (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article grant undue prominence to AME's views on incest, pædophilia, et cetera?[edit]

Roughly half of the article appears to be devoted to a multiple-subheading synopsis of one article in which AME's opposition to incest, polygamy, and so on was outlined. I think these would be more appropriate condensed into a couple of sentences. Does anyone disagree? WikitorrensT 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly don't disagree with you there. I already condensed it somewhat following a dispute with the editor who kept trying to expand it further, using references that didn't even mention AME. I'd be happy to see it reduced further. Freikorp (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Marriage Equality's impact[edit]

I would like the opinion of other editors on the new section added to the article, entitled "Australian Marriage Equality's impact". The section begins with "The impact of Australian Marriage Equality's lobbying for marriage equality / same-sex marriage (SSM), as of May 2014, can be summarised as follows". However no reference in the section is about the specific effectiveness of AME, this is just a collection of general events regarding SSM with an obvious bias against SSM. Original wording was "SSM was approved, but subsequently quashed in the Australian Capital Territory." No attention was given to the notable fact that SSM was approved for the first time in Australia's history, emphasis was only given to the fact it was overturned. But even though SSM was approved for the first time, how much of its approval can be directly attributed to the efforts of AME? AME is not the only organisation lobbying for gay rights. Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia, which is covered in far greater and more balanced detail at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Freikorp (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: This doesn't read like an "impact" section at all. Rather, it's more like how the AME's efforts were negated, and does read like an anti-AME section. Epicgenius (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine - I have no problem if the heading is changed to ==How the Australian Marriage Equality's efforts have been negated== Keeping in mind WP:NOTPROMOTION of AME. Sam56mas (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Readers of this Wiki-encyclopaedia are informed that AME is the, "pre-eminent group campaigning for marriage equality in Australia" and that it was "founded in 2004". Readers would expect there would be information on its campaign-achievements in the last 10 years. All references within this section (currently [36] to [45]) will cite AME. I am sure all this is in the spirit of, "increasing the number of people and perspectives contributing to LGBT information". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Pride_2014 Sam56mas (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Freikorp's general sentiments: this seems much more like a generic potted history of setbacks to marriage equality in Australia rather than anything specifically relevant to AME as an organisation. Perhaps it would be better placed in another article regarding marriage equality in Australia more generally rather than this particular article? WikitorrensT 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment on Sam's proposal: I don't think that altering the section heading addresses the major problem with the content: that it is not specifically relevant to AME rather than Australian marriage equality (small m, small e) more broadly. WikitorrensT 06:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, the proposed section uses verifiable information, but would need to satisfy NPOV and be linked to other articles discussing LGBT rights in Australia and be consistent with their phrasing, neutrality and content. There should be discussion of the Pew survey result finding we're in the top 5 countries who believe in social acceptability of same-sex relationships, and that while a majority support same sex marriage, most don't prioritise it as a voting issue.
Australia has been referred to by publications as one of the most gay friendly countries in the world, with recent polls indicating that a majority of Australians support same-sex marriage.[1] A 2013 poll conducted by Pew Research indicated that 79% of Australians viewed that homosexuality should be accepted by society, making it the fifth most supportive country in the world behind Czech Republic, Canada, Germany and Spain, which ranked first.[2] Because of its long history in regard to LGBT rights and its annual three-week long Mardi Gras festival, Sydney has been named one of the most gay friendly cities in the country and in the world.[3]
The section should be titled Current Situation and be NPOV to avoid reading as a criticism of the group per se. The APH article includes the Fairfax Nielsen poll which should be included APH -- Aronzak (talk) 23:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Government report
  2. ^ Gay supportive nations
  3. ^ Ten best places in the world to be gay

Current status[edit]

Freikorp asked that a section labelled "AME's impact" be reviewed. He wrote . . . . Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia . . . . He wrote to other editors seeking their opinions. Those other editors have made their contributions, changing the header and considerably increasing the size of the section. The additions have many Wikipedia-issues, not the least of which are those initially raised. Freikorp, "an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community", over to you for a NPOV fix.Sam56mas (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a tedious person Sam, you really enjoy being a troll don't you? You're having a chuckle right now just cause you've got a reaction off someone again. Despite your initial wikipedia editing which was pure vandalism which you were temporarily blocked for, you and I both know you now know enough about editing wikipedia to know your 'AME's impact' section was so biased that it would never have been accepted as it was after peer review, but you added it anyway, because you get a kick out of causing controversy. You also know not to start a new section when you're still talking about the same issue as the previous section, but you couldn't help yourself could you? You are a sad, sad person. Sure the article still uses references that don't mention AME, but since 100% of those references aren't skewed to fit your specific agenda, I don't see that as a huge deal, same story for the section being a summary of SSM history. But more importantly, the section has a title that is entirely appropriate to what the section contains. Your section was titled 'AME's impact', when in reality what it contained was 'Sam's interpretation of AME's impact, personal bias included'. There's nothing to fix here because you're the only person with a problem. The article isn't tainted with your bias (or anybody else's), so i'm not concerned anymore. You seem to forget, I was the one who thought we'd both made a mess of the ACL article, I felt bad about it, so I contacted neutral third parties for comment. I am not interested in edit-warring between two people, I am interested in getting as many opinions as possible so that a consensus can be reached. I always accept consensus. Anyone who checks my edit history over the past 8 years will see the overwhelming number of articles I edit are on neutral subjects. You on the other hand, are proud of the fact you are a single-purpose account. Just like your good 'ol pal Jim Wallace, i'm sure you'll collect quotes from this post, take them out of context, and twist them to your own advantage when it suits you, but I don't care anymore. You can write whatever you want back in this section because i'm not interested in arguing further. Start a fight with somebody else. If you're actually interested in improving the section, join in the conversation with the other editors in the section above this one. Freikorp (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "other editors" mentioned would be me. It's unsurprising that Sam56mas has been banned before with removing good content that I only added because I thought the edit was in good faith. I've kept a version of the old edit here User:Aronzak/lgbt. I've added discussion of the Aug 2013 Fairfax Nielsen poll on how most supporters of SSM don't base their vote on it, which is very relevant to discussion of AME lobbying & activism -- Aronzak (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pls remove citations (and Wiki text) currently numbered [32], [34] & [38} being WP:SELFSOURCE. Citation [21] - 'being a source of information about themselves' (AME) - is OK.Sam56mas (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your site and wanted to say I supported your right for equality.[edit]

ri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A01C:5900:899E:947A:A13A:76C3 (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just found your site and wanted to say I support the right to leave marriage as it is, man and woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.69.145 (talk) 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reference link has been gobbled by an advertiser[edit]

Tried and tried to find the link to the article "Gay Couple Married in Canada blast Australian Government". 365gay.com. 28 December 2005. Retrieved 23 July 2012. mentioned on other wiki pages, but click the link and it goes to a liposuction clinic. Irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.206.106 (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Marriage_Equality&oldid=1205511024"