![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The following edits have removed (parts of) the Criticism & Parody Section, then other edits have restored them:
Two key questions need consensus:
Please feel free to discuss below. twilsonb ( talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk · contribs) and HiLo48 ( talk · contribs), you both came close to breaking the three-revert rule from 14 to 16 March 2011 in the Internet Censorship & Gay Rights sections. Sam56mas reverted 3 times within 34 hours 47 minutes (and made the first two edits), and HiLo48 reverted 3 times within 45 hours 56 minutes. Last time, in August 2010, you both made contributions when there was a similar edit war on this page, affecting the Internet Censorship topic. (For the record, I made 2 contributions in August 2010, too.)
List of Warring Edits
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
If you can't sort it out, you might both have to leave the ACL page alone - but that would be a shame as you've both made multiple contributions that have improved the article. HiLo48 has tried to start a discussion at User talk:Sam56mas#Marriage and in their edit comments - now that you've both had a few weeks to cool down, why not talk about it? twilsonb ( talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am the ACT director of the ACL and so don't want to be involved in posting. If someone was willing though I think it is appropriate to have some information about the ACL Public Policy magazine which has been running a range of topics over several years now and is given to every politician in Australia. The website is www.viewpointmagazine.com.au for some info and back issues. ACL also partners with a group called Compass Australia (which when first set up was under ACL's board, but is now a seperate organisation with a different board) which is a youth leadership course www.compass.org.au.
Cheers, Nick Jensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padre Nick ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list all the ACL's 'recent activities' in such a drawn out manner? The ACL's actual policies are not even included, so I for one don't find this information useful at all. I.e "Climate change" is listed as a recent activity but their stance on it is not. Everyone has a stance on climate change, and naturally the ACL is no exception. I understand their stance is no doubt available on their website, I just don't see a point in having a bullet-point list of everything the group has formed an opinion on taking up such a large section of the article. Freikorp ( talk) 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted two heading changes which changed the text to media buzzwords rather than a factual statement of what the policies pursued are:
I've left the other edits by Sam56mas as I'm sure they're perfectly reasonable and valid. -- Deadly∀ssassin 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Sam56mas, Without wanting to get into an edit war over this, I disagree with your proposed edits to the article:
Hopefully you're willing to discuss my concerns. -- Deadly∀ssassin 10:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to submit this article for peer review. There are only a couple people heavily editing it, those obviously opposed to the the ACL (such as myself) and those obviously strongly for it. In the interest of being impartial I think we should get some more opinions. It also deeply bothers me that whilst the majority of references criticising the ACL come from independent parties (ABC, Herald sun, etc...) the majority of references in favour of the ACL come directly from the ACL. It does not surprise me that the ACL can't seem to find much support outside their own websites, considering they actively and aggressively campaign against what the majority of people want, but I fear an edit war if I choose to remove their references myself. Freikorp ( talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If, within my uploaded entries, there are confirmed content errors, or if there are confirmed Wikipedia formatting-convention errors - let me know, and I will immediately correct them. Otherwise the entries speak for themselves. Sam56mas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam56mas ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________
Deadly∀ssassin
You have raised a number of issues. Let me deal with them in order:
There is no evidence to show that I treat Wikipedia as my personal website.
Nor is there evidence that I use related-sources. Count them. The only ACL related-sources are in the introduction and some verifiable submissions to government enquiries and a link to For Kid’s Sake downloadable report. There is an ACL recording of a conference speaker and three ACL videos of prominent people including the Prime Minister – hardly contestable. All the rest are non-related.
As for neutral in tone – you refer earlier to comments re “vitriolic” and "has copped more than his fair share of abuse" Which you removed. I accepted your removal. However they were not my words. Those words came from Miranda Devine - Sunday Herald Sun > With its intolerance and standover tactics, the militant arm of the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot. The vitriol and vile abuse heaped on anyone who speaks up for traditional marriage is no way to win hearts and minds. Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, has copped more than his fair share of abuse, yet he is one of the few who continues publicly to defend traditional marriage. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gays-must-curb-vile-vitriol/story-e6frfhqf-1226167514970
Again - I accepted your change and your removal of those words. Fine.
However relating to the rules you set for others - you might review > Greens MP Colleen Hartland stated "I would think their [the ACL's] hatred of gays is un-Christian."[52] Impugning hatred is a much more serious accusation than is impugning vitriolic abuse.
I know we are dealing with difficult issues and while Jim Wallace was wrong re that Anzac Day tweet - at least he apologised. Meanwhile people like Wendy Francis and others get volumes of ‘vitriolic’ abuse, you can find it – many Facebook sites such as, “Fuck Wendy Francis”. From an ABC's Q&A tweet, "Jim Wallace is a cunt" There are stacks more examples. You term that (form of abuse) politely as Cyberbullying. I let that stand. Interestingly – In the other direction, I am not aware of any apologies, for anything.
Again in the other direction - I note that silly tweet from Josh Thomas was accepted without question, and would probably still be on this Wikipedia page, had I not challenged it.
I believe your statement : Lobbying against gay rights -> Protecting traditional marriage This text is POV, frankly there's no evidence to suggest that gay marriage has any effect on "traditional marriage". Let's be descriptive about what the group actually does (i.e. lobby against gay rights). I believe that statement in itself is also POV, but again I have accepted your changes.
Please clarify - Where are the references which, “do not back up the claims he has made in the article”? As for “the concerns that litter this talk page” I believe they have been dealt with - I have accepted all your recommendations. If not, please show me where correction is needed and we can discuss.
Sam56mas ( talk) 11:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
PS The intention of the third para, revision > Nor is there evidence that I excessively use related-sources.
Sam56mas ( talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article with its amount of subheadings is starting to look absolutely ridiculous; if Sam56mas keeps this up soon we may have to split this article and create a separate 'ACL policies' article. Does someone know if wiki has a policy on how many subheadings an article may have? In any case a lot of of what is in the 'Range of ACL issues' section should be removed as per WP:Not news. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a a comprehensive list of everything an organisation has ever done; can you imagine how long the Australian Labor Party article would be if they listed every policy they had ever had? In order to meet wikipedia's guidelines I think this article should simply have a 'policy' section where certain things from the 'Range of ACL issues' are summarised into a few paragraphs. Does anyone else feel the same way and have any suggestions for restructuring the article? Freikorp ( talk) 11:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Responding
I promised I would make a few comments about this article, having earlier taken it out of the WP peer review process as inappropriate. There is nothing to stop a religious organisation or group having a Wikipedia article, provided that it is written in neutral language and takes the form of an encyclopedia entry rather than promotional material. I have to say that as an example of an encyclopedia article, this one is in pretty poor shape as it stands. Basic, routine information that you would expect to find in any aricle about an active organisation is simply not there. For example:-
I would expect to see all this information in a properly researched article on an organisation that was thought notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. A few further thoughts:
I don't have further time to spend on this article, but these points should give you a few ideas on how the article should be rebuilt. Remember that NPOV is the key to any encyclopedia article. Once contentious information is introduced, articles like this become timewasting battlegrounds. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Responding
I like these new changes to the article, well done. My only main concern is the "public Christianity" part. It is backed up by one reference, which only consults Wallace for once quote, which is mentioned in its entirety in the article. Even though in reality it is a serious issue and I personally support ending the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt I don't think it could be considered a "major issue"; It's just a brief mention. I think it should be removed. Freikorp ( talk) 11:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
_____________________
_________________________________
Responding to Deadly∀ssassin's dot points in sequence.
Some current issues on which ACL lobbies - is more a accurate statement rather than Current issues on which ACL lobbies check www.acl.org.au
Responding to Freikorp - Fine we have dealt with that caveat previously, even if you feel must repeat it, three more times. Again at [38](twice) and at [54].
I must say looking at the balance of the article (beyond the introduction)
ACL is also actively working to try to prevent Copts from being killed. However the single / modest sentence on that subject, backed up a The Age article as the source, was deleted as apparently not worthy to go into Wikipedia. Interestingly, within this Wikipedia article it is claimed that, ACL . . . . is strongly opposed by free-speech . . . advocates.
This entire Wikipeda page looks unbalanced.
However, I do not lose sleep over any of these (noble) corrections, as people can, and do, make up their own minds.
Sam56mas ( talk) 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The statements regarding the acl having received support and criticism have been moved from the introduction to the 'aim' section. I don't think this information belongs in this section, and considering the information and references that they have support were no doubt placed there to counter the criticism part (and there is nothing wrong with doing that, don't get me wrong) and they also have a primary sources tag, I propose removing the entire sentence. There's no point in saying they have generally received criticism in one subsection (in the introduction is a different story) if all the detailed information is in another subsection, and if that is gone there is nothing to counter. I would have done this already but I don't want to start an edit war if there is a disagreement. Any objections? Freikorp ( talk) 11:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:AustralianChristianLobbyLogo2011a.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
Sam56mas please don't insinuate that I am not taking the murder of 79 people seriously. Also our opinions are irrelevant: you think Mr Wallace's insights are deep and I think they are cheap shots, but that does not matter.
I simply don't think adding detailed information regarding potential influences on the massacre will improve the article. Right now it just has the raw facts - Mr Wallace made some comments and somebody criticised them. You can give the section undue weight by only mentioning the handful of references in Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto regarding video games, and then I can counter your argument by pointing out that his manifesto was had far more biblical and Christian references than video game ones.
I believe the only thing our edits will accomplish in the long run is making the article more complicated and long-winded than it already is. I think there is enough information there already, and that the reader can decide whether to agree with Mr Wallace or his criticiser. I'm not trying to stop you from adding the information, I was just trying to say if you add it I will add information opposing it so why don't we not waste our time on this one when our arguments are probably just going to balance each other out anyway. Freikorp ( talk) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally can I propose a mutual shortening of the article? Can we remove the block quote of Jim Wallace criticising Modern Warfare 2 (and replace it with a line simply saying he criticised it and one if the reasons why), and at the same time remove the block quotes from Nathan Cambell and Jeremy Ray, thereby only saying they criticised the ACL and why, without having parts of their actual quotes?. I think both of these sections go into too much detail; I was only attempting to match your level of detail by adding the block quotes in the first place. Freikorp ( talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC
__________________________________________________
The Australian Christian Lobby entry in Wikipedia contains a section specifically for Controversy and criticism. That is fine. However this raises three issues - one minor and two major.
1 (minor) The Controversy and criticism section has become a repository for - some would say 'exceedingly detailed' - accusations against the ACL. Some might view some of the comments as 'petty'. All the same, this is fine.
2 (major) The area above the Controversy and criticism 'line' also contains not insignificant Controversy and Criticism. (eg considerable sections of the Issues relating to censorship and Issues relating to gay rights)
3 (major) Contrary to the position outlined in 2 above, natural justice is curtailed below the 'line'. There is almost no ACL defence permitted below the 'line'. As a case in point re the attack on Jim Wallace by a theology student - apparently no back ground or ACL defence is permitted.
For these reasons the ACL Wikipedia entry is unbalanced. To rectify this problem, all disparate controversy and criticism has been moved to the section Controversy and criticism. This provides a better categorisation of the issues. In the new arrangement no words were deleted, no words were added. Sam56mas ( talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas, I believe I've now reverted you attempting to remove Geoff Lemon's comments on the grounds the issue is already covered in the "Adshel advertisements" section 3 times now. I will explain on the talk page as clearly my explanation in the edit summaries have not been adequate for you. Yes, the adshel advertisements section does mention that "None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the Australian Christian Lobby, so Adshel was made to believe that they originated from individual members of the public" however that is all it mentions, it does not mention complaints of hypocrisy regarding the ACL's criticism of others. Also just because one reference mentions what they did, does not mean another person criticising those actions should be ignored. The comment ""None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the ACL..." only mentions what the ACL did. It is simply a fact. Whilst it is easy for me at least to criticise what they did, it is not directly criticism in itself as it is not opinionated. I will consider merging Lemon's comments with the "adshel advertisements" section so it does not appear that the issue is being repeated. Freikorp ( talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The following text currently appears in the article:
"Katrina Fox, a journalist, who "has written extensively for the gay and lesbian media",[19] has stated it makes more sense to an expand the "definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models" than to just legalise gay marriage.[20] Expansions currently being advocated in Australia include polygamy[21] and polyamory.[22] During a Senate Inquiry, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked, "Should (there) be equity and equality in relationships regardless of, for example, the number of people participating in that relationship?" He replied, "The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people. There may be, in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step."[23]"
References 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 mention NOTHING about the ACL. Not only that, it contains an Association fallacy regarding writing "written extensively for the gay and lesbian media". This association has not been commented on by any third party, rather it has simply been added via her profile page. I am assuming these 5 references and the paragraph associated with them have been set up to provide some sort of relevance for the paragraphs final sentence and reference:
"Jim Wallace has noted that The Greens claim that "love is love" and advocate "marriage equality", but inconsistently reject polygamous love and polygamous marriage.[38]"
This last sentence is all well and good. Jim Wallace's comments are of course, relevant to the articles subject. If Katrina Fox mentioned the ACL in her article, her comments would be relevant. I might have just overlooked this if it was just one reference, (if I've done this myself in any point of the article I apologise and will of course consider removing it if you point it out to me) but five is far too much in my opinion. I don't think it's objective to pull the comments that support what you are getting at when there would of course be comments opposing it, that also do not mention the article's subject. If I didn't think anyone would object I would have just deleted the whole part in question, but I'm going to either hear any opinions on why they should stay, or give people an option to replace the part in questions themselves. Freikorp ( talk) 07:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I still maintain Katrina Fox's comments do not belong here, if you still insist they must remain here or do not respond I will take this issue to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Freikorp ( talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Here from third opinion. First of all, Freikorp, it is inappropriate to note that you are going to 3O as the intent is for the request to appear impartial. That said, I agree that material about Fox should be removed as there is no clear connection to ACL noted. I am not so certain about the second part because it appears Jim Wallace is referring to at least one of those incidents. Specifically, the "Confessions of a polygamist" article seems to be the polygamous relationship featured in The Punch and SBS that Wallace cites. However, the way the source is currently cited is inappropriate. I would suggest wording it in a way that makes it clear this story was being cited by Wallace as pointing to the alleged dangers of legalizing gay marriage.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned this article is becoming overly detailed (turning into a comprehensive account of everything the ACL and ACL members have ever done). I am also interested to hear if anyone thinks it is violation of WP:PROMOTION. Freikorp ( talk) 06:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I've suspected for some time now. I have already reduced the criticism section, which I largely created, by over 3,500 characters and attempted to write it in more of a news style. I intend to shorten the rest of the article in a similar fashion shortly. Freikorp ( talk) 04:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Rather than start an edit-war, If anyone has a problem with any changes I've made to the article please list them here so we can reach an agreement. I've removed some references including a dead link to the classification laws, a link to the advertising standards home page that does not mention the issue it is supposed to back up, rather we are expected to search through the website ourselves, and the following link [9] which does not mention the ACL, rather it just mentions an issue they happen to have campaigned on and was accordingly being used in violation of synthesis and original research guidelines. Freikorp ( talk) 05:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I've combined the long winded title "Issues relating to 'freedoms' of expression: Restraint being advocated by ACL" with the censorship section. If they are encouraging an internet filter, that is censorship, purely and simply. As with everything like this criticism is in the eye of the beholder. Censorship is not a negative things per se, i.e I support censoring child porn. I just don't see a point in separating the censorship which is perceived by the media to be bad with the censorship that is perceived as being appropriate. It all belongs together. Freikorp ( talk) 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Corrected one non-Freikorp input. I will respond in due course. Sam56mas ( talk) 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Contrasting Wikipedia entries on The Greens and the Australian Christian Lobby proves the bias of the site. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 114.73.114.9 ( talk) 01:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
An OLO comment which seems to sum up the situation. The motivations of the custodians of the Green and ACL Wikipedia sites were obvious after the publication of the above article in OLO. Firstly they removed any evidence of dispute from the Greens and ACL pages. Against the spirit of the Wikipedia Guidelines, which states: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. However that removal was virtually predictable - refer to the futility of editing tags reference above. Like King Midas (sic) the Emperor and his lack of clothes, one editor decreed, despite the above, there is no dispute. They also said any opinion in OLO is not acceptable for Wikipedia, completely ignoring a prior Wikipedia determination to the contrary. Labelling the OLO article as 'laughable' represents other great intellectual insight enlisted to help resolve this problem. Another criticised someone who apparently removed some text within Wikipedia ACL. (pots and kettles come to mind) Further, the left-theologians deemed any contribution by a 'Christian' must be biased and therefore can not be accepted. While the comment noting that Wikipedia pages are updated by different authors, might represent a revelation to the statement's author, otherwise I am not sure of its relevance. In actually responding to the concerns raised, someone did fix two missing [citations needed]. While that is good he/she obviously did not read the OLO article and fixed the wrong citations.
That's it. Debate now over. Back to business-as-usual. The issue is not so much Wikipedia being corrupted. It is Wikipedia being used as propaganda. 42.241.205.134 ( talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The entire paragraph had an WP:UNDUE problem for both its positioning and content. The fifty national church leaders 'trump' many times over all the other named organisations. As a measure of the current activities of the VCC check out the http://www.vcc.org.au/ website, which has been in this form for at least the last two months.
I have placed Vic and Qld, anti ACL positions - even added their respective controversy and criticism wordings in the 'Controversy and criticism' section. If the section on 'Support from other Christian groups' / 'Support' is to be reverted back, possibly it could be expanded to include:
1 Gillard agrees to address Christian lobby http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8516287/gillard-agrees-to-address-christian-lobby even http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8780/Christian-Lobby-plans-cozy-night-with-Gillard.htm
2 The issue of gay marriage sits 12th in importance with even the supposedly "socially progressive" GetUp!'s membership. [1]
3 Had removed, but could put back: At a Senate hearing, Jim Wallace responded to questions regarding the VCC media release by saying that "a great majority, I would not claim 100 per cent, but certainly [a] great majority [of VCC members]," do support ACL's position on marriage. [2]
4 Could add the informative (not to mention positive) comments from the NSW Council of Churches re the comparative roles of the ACL and the churches. I could put statement from http://www.nswchurches.org/Resources/2CH%20Commentaries/C111218.pdf in a {{Quote . . . form now that {{quotes are apparently again permitted.
Interesting chronology on the use of Wiki {{Quotes:
1 Allowed > Revision as of 11:09, 16 August 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Gay rights: new information and references)
2 Disallowed > Revision as of 14:11, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Issues relating to family: in an attempt to shorten the article I previously removed the quote about the petition against the ACL, now I'm removing the quote about their statement, they are both available in the reference)
3 Disallowed > Revision as of 03:38, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Anzac Day 2011: shortening as per RrC suggestion)
At the end of the day the support, or "lack of it", for ACL and particularly its position on marriage will be decided, not on the pages of Wikipedia, but in Parliament House Canberra.
Sam56mas ( talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard don't think the comment about Googling the F and C word etcetera are of significance, interestingly this is partially because they state the commentator "appears not to understand how the Google search facility works". Search for "Online opinion" at the noticeboard and see the comments. Accordingly that statement should not appear in the article.
I also do not think the statement in the article "After an alleged bashing, the ACL refused to participate in a debate on same-sex marriage on the grounds they fear "personal attack and vitriol" from gay activists." is accurate enough. The statement in the ACL reference reads "They made reference to the shocking and unfounded attempt to slur Michael Ferguson by ALP State MP Brenton Best, when he accused him of being “partly responsible” for the bashing of a gay man simply because he had been a member of a family values group some eight years before."
The alleged bashing does not appear a reason why the ACL pulled out of the debate, the issue seems to be the ACL are unhappy someone was accused of being "partially responsible" for bashing a gay man, not the attack itself. There is another point; the quote in the article does not mention that the person who was supposedly bashed was gay. Also the reference doesn't say who was bashed, or when they were bashed, or where they were basked so I think it is a very unreliable source for an allegation of an attack. In any case the bashing does not appear to be the only reason the ACL are pulling out of debates, even according to this reference. The ACL have been accusing gay activist of vitriol for a long time. This needs rewording. Your suggestions are welcome; I didn't have enough space to explain all of that in the edit summary. Freikorp ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my edit summary was misleading, there just isn't enough space in those things to fully describe rationale sometimes. I put that information in there to point out that that is the only information www.onlineopinion.com has about him. He is not touted as an expert on anything, much less the topic at hand, and therefore his input is not sufficiently notable to be included.
Also, from WP:NOTRS
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.
From my understanding of the site, it is entirely based on personal opinion. Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Should we have this image in the article or not? Sam56mas has been removing the picture I put up here with a weird reason: "The pasting of 'Oddee' images on Wikipedia sites speaks a thousand words about your motivation". My motivation here is that Jim Wallace is an important person in ACL. I had taken a picture of him. The article would be improved with an image of Jim Wallace, rather than being a lot of unillustrated text. (I am thinking about taking a picture of their office, however unexciting that is). [My COI declaration: I have been to a couple of ACL events, and I saw Jim Wallace in a shopping centre on Friday night. One of my friends works in the ACL office. I am not opposed to most of their point of view.] Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a permanent solution to our ongoing debates about what is and is not appropriate to be added to the article. People already know whether they like or loathe the ACL before coming to the article, I think we are just preaching to our respective choirs by adding pro and con arguments. I suggest we remove all references and information from the article that come from sources with an obvious conflict of interest. As a newspaper aimed at the LGBT community, Sydney Star Observer obviously are not going to say many positive things about the ACL; we currently have four references from them. Video game websites are obviously not going to be happy the ACL keeps trying to ban games and increase censorship laws, we currently have four references from notable video game websites. Of course if a mainstream major newspaper reports what a video game (or other opposition) website has said that would be acceptable, but I proposing not quoting the ACL's opposition directly. At the other end of the spectrum "Christian Today" is used as a reference 11 times. To be objective we should again not be quoting Christian websites directly, they are of course much more likely to report on the ACL and are giving the article the same kind of undue weight as the opposition sites do.
So my proposal is removing all references with an obvious conflict of interest, and citing major mainstream sources as much as possible. References coming directly from the ACL should be confined entirely to non-controversial material, such as the info box, vision statement and organisation information. Further debate could be raised about quoting individuals who whilst writing in a neutralish source have an obvious conflict of interest themselves. Miranda Devine is quoted in the article, and she is openly a conservative Christian who is against some LGBT rights, Brian Greig on the other hand has been "involved in gay rights activism during the 1990s", and has a conflict of interest himself.
Your thoughts? If you all think this is a bad idea I won't be offended, it's just a suggestion. Freikorp ( talk) 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I will progressively clean-up this Wikipedia site, starting with the outrageous distortions (made by Wikipedia editors without any citation-backing) of what Jim Wallace actually said ( = propaganda) which yet-again demonstrates that (1) Wikipedia is being corrupted by, "claiming that such action is similar to Nazi propaganda used to justify the deprivation of rights to Jews" and that (2) Jim Wallace is correct.
After the clean-up, I will then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion Sam56mas ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
As appropriate, WWP can refer to: World War2 Propaganda (WWP) (see above) or Weasel Word Phrase (WWP) or Where Were_you Phreikorp (WWP). Once Wikipedia Was Prestigious (WWP) but now Wikipedia is Compromised (WWP) (refer http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 ) Sam56mas ( talk) 22:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC) — Sam56mas ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So what !
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The following edits have removed (parts of) the Criticism & Parody Section, then other edits have restored them:
Two key questions need consensus:
Please feel free to discuss below. twilsonb ( talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk · contribs) and HiLo48 ( talk · contribs), you both came close to breaking the three-revert rule from 14 to 16 March 2011 in the Internet Censorship & Gay Rights sections. Sam56mas reverted 3 times within 34 hours 47 minutes (and made the first two edits), and HiLo48 reverted 3 times within 45 hours 56 minutes. Last time, in August 2010, you both made contributions when there was a similar edit war on this page, affecting the Internet Censorship topic. (For the record, I made 2 contributions in August 2010, too.)
List of Warring Edits
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
If you can't sort it out, you might both have to leave the ACL page alone - but that would be a shame as you've both made multiple contributions that have improved the article. HiLo48 has tried to start a discussion at User talk:Sam56mas#Marriage and in their edit comments - now that you've both had a few weeks to cool down, why not talk about it? twilsonb ( talk) 19:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I am the ACT director of the ACL and so don't want to be involved in posting. If someone was willing though I think it is appropriate to have some information about the ACL Public Policy magazine which has been running a range of topics over several years now and is given to every politician in Australia. The website is www.viewpointmagazine.com.au for some info and back issues. ACL also partners with a group called Compass Australia (which when first set up was under ACL's board, but is now a seperate organisation with a different board) which is a youth leadership course www.compass.org.au.
Cheers, Nick Jensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padre Nick ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list all the ACL's 'recent activities' in such a drawn out manner? The ACL's actual policies are not even included, so I for one don't find this information useful at all. I.e "Climate change" is listed as a recent activity but their stance on it is not. Everyone has a stance on climate change, and naturally the ACL is no exception. I understand their stance is no doubt available on their website, I just don't see a point in having a bullet-point list of everything the group has formed an opinion on taking up such a large section of the article. Freikorp ( talk) 11:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted two heading changes which changed the text to media buzzwords rather than a factual statement of what the policies pursued are:
I've left the other edits by Sam56mas as I'm sure they're perfectly reasonable and valid. -- Deadly∀ssassin 11:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Sam56mas, Without wanting to get into an edit war over this, I disagree with your proposed edits to the article:
Hopefully you're willing to discuss my concerns. -- Deadly∀ssassin 10:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to submit this article for peer review. There are only a couple people heavily editing it, those obviously opposed to the the ACL (such as myself) and those obviously strongly for it. In the interest of being impartial I think we should get some more opinions. It also deeply bothers me that whilst the majority of references criticising the ACL come from independent parties (ABC, Herald sun, etc...) the majority of references in favour of the ACL come directly from the ACL. It does not surprise me that the ACL can't seem to find much support outside their own websites, considering they actively and aggressively campaign against what the majority of people want, but I fear an edit war if I choose to remove their references myself. Freikorp ( talk) 22:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
If, within my uploaded entries, there are confirmed content errors, or if there are confirmed Wikipedia formatting-convention errors - let me know, and I will immediately correct them. Otherwise the entries speak for themselves. Sam56mas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam56mas ( talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
_____________________________________________________
Deadly∀ssassin
You have raised a number of issues. Let me deal with them in order:
There is no evidence to show that I treat Wikipedia as my personal website.
Nor is there evidence that I use related-sources. Count them. The only ACL related-sources are in the introduction and some verifiable submissions to government enquiries and a link to For Kid’s Sake downloadable report. There is an ACL recording of a conference speaker and three ACL videos of prominent people including the Prime Minister – hardly contestable. All the rest are non-related.
As for neutral in tone – you refer earlier to comments re “vitriolic” and "has copped more than his fair share of abuse" Which you removed. I accepted your removal. However they were not my words. Those words came from Miranda Devine - Sunday Herald Sun > With its intolerance and standover tactics, the militant arm of the gay lobby is shooting itself in the foot. The vitriol and vile abuse heaped on anyone who speaks up for traditional marriage is no way to win hearts and minds. Jim Wallace, head of the Australian Christian Lobby, has copped more than his fair share of abuse, yet he is one of the few who continues publicly to defend traditional marriage. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/gays-must-curb-vile-vitriol/story-e6frfhqf-1226167514970
Again - I accepted your change and your removal of those words. Fine.
However relating to the rules you set for others - you might review > Greens MP Colleen Hartland stated "I would think their [the ACL's] hatred of gays is un-Christian."[52] Impugning hatred is a much more serious accusation than is impugning vitriolic abuse.
I know we are dealing with difficult issues and while Jim Wallace was wrong re that Anzac Day tweet - at least he apologised. Meanwhile people like Wendy Francis and others get volumes of ‘vitriolic’ abuse, you can find it – many Facebook sites such as, “Fuck Wendy Francis”. From an ABC's Q&A tweet, "Jim Wallace is a cunt" There are stacks more examples. You term that (form of abuse) politely as Cyberbullying. I let that stand. Interestingly – In the other direction, I am not aware of any apologies, for anything.
Again in the other direction - I note that silly tweet from Josh Thomas was accepted without question, and would probably still be on this Wikipedia page, had I not challenged it.
I believe your statement : Lobbying against gay rights -> Protecting traditional marriage This text is POV, frankly there's no evidence to suggest that gay marriage has any effect on "traditional marriage". Let's be descriptive about what the group actually does (i.e. lobby against gay rights). I believe that statement in itself is also POV, but again I have accepted your changes.
Please clarify - Where are the references which, “do not back up the claims he has made in the article”? As for “the concerns that litter this talk page” I believe they have been dealt with - I have accepted all your recommendations. If not, please show me where correction is needed and we can discuss.
Sam56mas ( talk) 11:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
PS The intention of the third para, revision > Nor is there evidence that I excessively use related-sources.
Sam56mas ( talk) 11:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
This article with its amount of subheadings is starting to look absolutely ridiculous; if Sam56mas keeps this up soon we may have to split this article and create a separate 'ACL policies' article. Does someone know if wiki has a policy on how many subheadings an article may have? In any case a lot of of what is in the 'Range of ACL issues' section should be removed as per WP:Not news. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a a comprehensive list of everything an organisation has ever done; can you imagine how long the Australian Labor Party article would be if they listed every policy they had ever had? In order to meet wikipedia's guidelines I think this article should simply have a 'policy' section where certain things from the 'Range of ACL issues' are summarised into a few paragraphs. Does anyone else feel the same way and have any suggestions for restructuring the article? Freikorp ( talk) 11:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Responding
I promised I would make a few comments about this article, having earlier taken it out of the WP peer review process as inappropriate. There is nothing to stop a religious organisation or group having a Wikipedia article, provided that it is written in neutral language and takes the form of an encyclopedia entry rather than promotional material. I have to say that as an example of an encyclopedia article, this one is in pretty poor shape as it stands. Basic, routine information that you would expect to find in any aricle about an active organisation is simply not there. For example:-
I would expect to see all this information in a properly researched article on an organisation that was thought notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. A few further thoughts:
I don't have further time to spend on this article, but these points should give you a few ideas on how the article should be rebuilt. Remember that NPOV is the key to any encyclopedia article. Once contentious information is introduced, articles like this become timewasting battlegrounds. Brianboulton ( talk) 00:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Responding
I like these new changes to the article, well done. My only main concern is the "public Christianity" part. It is backed up by one reference, which only consults Wallace for once quote, which is mentioned in its entirety in the article. Even though in reality it is a serious issue and I personally support ending the persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt I don't think it could be considered a "major issue"; It's just a brief mention. I think it should be removed. Freikorp ( talk) 11:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
_____________________
_________________________________
Responding to Deadly∀ssassin's dot points in sequence.
Some current issues on which ACL lobbies - is more a accurate statement rather than Current issues on which ACL lobbies check www.acl.org.au
Responding to Freikorp - Fine we have dealt with that caveat previously, even if you feel must repeat it, three more times. Again at [38](twice) and at [54].
I must say looking at the balance of the article (beyond the introduction)
ACL is also actively working to try to prevent Copts from being killed. However the single / modest sentence on that subject, backed up a The Age article as the source, was deleted as apparently not worthy to go into Wikipedia. Interestingly, within this Wikipedia article it is claimed that, ACL . . . . is strongly opposed by free-speech . . . advocates.
This entire Wikipeda page looks unbalanced.
However, I do not lose sleep over any of these (noble) corrections, as people can, and do, make up their own minds.
Sam56mas ( talk) 12:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The statements regarding the acl having received support and criticism have been moved from the introduction to the 'aim' section. I don't think this information belongs in this section, and considering the information and references that they have support were no doubt placed there to counter the criticism part (and there is nothing wrong with doing that, don't get me wrong) and they also have a primary sources tag, I propose removing the entire sentence. There's no point in saying they have generally received criticism in one subsection (in the introduction is a different story) if all the detailed information is in another subsection, and if that is gone there is nothing to counter. I would have done this already but I don't want to start an edit war if there is a disagreement. Any objections? Freikorp ( talk) 11:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:AustralianChristianLobbyLogo2011a.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC) |
Sam56mas please don't insinuate that I am not taking the murder of 79 people seriously. Also our opinions are irrelevant: you think Mr Wallace's insights are deep and I think they are cheap shots, but that does not matter.
I simply don't think adding detailed information regarding potential influences on the massacre will improve the article. Right now it just has the raw facts - Mr Wallace made some comments and somebody criticised them. You can give the section undue weight by only mentioning the handful of references in Anders Behring Breivik's manifesto regarding video games, and then I can counter your argument by pointing out that his manifesto was had far more biblical and Christian references than video game ones.
I believe the only thing our edits will accomplish in the long run is making the article more complicated and long-winded than it already is. I think there is enough information there already, and that the reader can decide whether to agree with Mr Wallace or his criticiser. I'm not trying to stop you from adding the information, I was just trying to say if you add it I will add information opposing it so why don't we not waste our time on this one when our arguments are probably just going to balance each other out anyway. Freikorp ( talk) 07:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally can I propose a mutual shortening of the article? Can we remove the block quote of Jim Wallace criticising Modern Warfare 2 (and replace it with a line simply saying he criticised it and one if the reasons why), and at the same time remove the block quotes from Nathan Cambell and Jeremy Ray, thereby only saying they criticised the ACL and why, without having parts of their actual quotes?. I think both of these sections go into too much detail; I was only attempting to match your level of detail by adding the block quotes in the first place. Freikorp ( talk) 07:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC
__________________________________________________
The Australian Christian Lobby entry in Wikipedia contains a section specifically for Controversy and criticism. That is fine. However this raises three issues - one minor and two major.
1 (minor) The Controversy and criticism section has become a repository for - some would say 'exceedingly detailed' - accusations against the ACL. Some might view some of the comments as 'petty'. All the same, this is fine.
2 (major) The area above the Controversy and criticism 'line' also contains not insignificant Controversy and Criticism. (eg considerable sections of the Issues relating to censorship and Issues relating to gay rights)
3 (major) Contrary to the position outlined in 2 above, natural justice is curtailed below the 'line'. There is almost no ACL defence permitted below the 'line'. As a case in point re the attack on Jim Wallace by a theology student - apparently no back ground or ACL defence is permitted.
For these reasons the ACL Wikipedia entry is unbalanced. To rectify this problem, all disparate controversy and criticism has been moved to the section Controversy and criticism. This provides a better categorisation of the issues. In the new arrangement no words were deleted, no words were added. Sam56mas ( talk) 00:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas, I believe I've now reverted you attempting to remove Geoff Lemon's comments on the grounds the issue is already covered in the "Adshel advertisements" section 3 times now. I will explain on the talk page as clearly my explanation in the edit summaries have not been adequate for you. Yes, the adshel advertisements section does mention that "None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the Australian Christian Lobby, so Adshel was made to believe that they originated from individual members of the public" however that is all it mentions, it does not mention complaints of hypocrisy regarding the ACL's criticism of others. Also just because one reference mentions what they did, does not mean another person criticising those actions should be ignored. The comment ""None of the complaints indicated any liaison with the ACL..." only mentions what the ACL did. It is simply a fact. Whilst it is easy for me at least to criticise what they did, it is not directly criticism in itself as it is not opinionated. I will consider merging Lemon's comments with the "adshel advertisements" section so it does not appear that the issue is being repeated. Freikorp ( talk) 23:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The following text currently appears in the article:
"Katrina Fox, a journalist, who "has written extensively for the gay and lesbian media",[19] has stated it makes more sense to an expand the "definition of marriage to include a range of relationship models" than to just legalise gay marriage.[20] Expansions currently being advocated in Australia include polygamy[21] and polyamory.[22] During a Senate Inquiry, former High Court Justice Michael Kirby was asked, "Should (there) be equity and equality in relationships regardless of, for example, the number of people participating in that relationship?" He replied, "The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people. There may be, in some future time, some other question. The lesson in courts and in the parliament, I suggest, is that you take matters step by step."[23]"
References 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 mention NOTHING about the ACL. Not only that, it contains an Association fallacy regarding writing "written extensively for the gay and lesbian media". This association has not been commented on by any third party, rather it has simply been added via her profile page. I am assuming these 5 references and the paragraph associated with them have been set up to provide some sort of relevance for the paragraphs final sentence and reference:
"Jim Wallace has noted that The Greens claim that "love is love" and advocate "marriage equality", but inconsistently reject polygamous love and polygamous marriage.[38]"
This last sentence is all well and good. Jim Wallace's comments are of course, relevant to the articles subject. If Katrina Fox mentioned the ACL in her article, her comments would be relevant. I might have just overlooked this if it was just one reference, (if I've done this myself in any point of the article I apologise and will of course consider removing it if you point it out to me) but five is far too much in my opinion. I don't think it's objective to pull the comments that support what you are getting at when there would of course be comments opposing it, that also do not mention the article's subject. If I didn't think anyone would object I would have just deleted the whole part in question, but I'm going to either hear any opinions on why they should stay, or give people an option to replace the part in questions themselves. Freikorp ( talk) 07:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I still maintain Katrina Fox's comments do not belong here, if you still insist they must remain here or do not respond I will take this issue to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Freikorp ( talk) 07:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Here from third opinion. First of all, Freikorp, it is inappropriate to note that you are going to 3O as the intent is for the request to appear impartial. That said, I agree that material about Fox should be removed as there is no clear connection to ACL noted. I am not so certain about the second part because it appears Jim Wallace is referring to at least one of those incidents. Specifically, the "Confessions of a polygamist" article seems to be the polygamous relationship featured in The Punch and SBS that Wallace cites. However, the way the source is currently cited is inappropriate. I would suggest wording it in a way that makes it clear this story was being cited by Wallace as pointing to the alleged dangers of legalizing gay marriage.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned this article is becoming overly detailed (turning into a comprehensive account of everything the ACL and ACL members have ever done). I am also interested to hear if anyone thinks it is violation of WP:PROMOTION. Freikorp ( talk) 06:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Sam56mas ( talk) 06:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. You have confirmed what I've suspected for some time now. I have already reduced the criticism section, which I largely created, by over 3,500 characters and attempted to write it in more of a news style. I intend to shorten the rest of the article in a similar fashion shortly. Freikorp ( talk) 04:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Rather than start an edit-war, If anyone has a problem with any changes I've made to the article please list them here so we can reach an agreement. I've removed some references including a dead link to the classification laws, a link to the advertising standards home page that does not mention the issue it is supposed to back up, rather we are expected to search through the website ourselves, and the following link [9] which does not mention the ACL, rather it just mentions an issue they happen to have campaigned on and was accordingly being used in violation of synthesis and original research guidelines. Freikorp ( talk) 05:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I've combined the long winded title "Issues relating to 'freedoms' of expression: Restraint being advocated by ACL" with the censorship section. If they are encouraging an internet filter, that is censorship, purely and simply. As with everything like this criticism is in the eye of the beholder. Censorship is not a negative things per se, i.e I support censoring child porn. I just don't see a point in separating the censorship which is perceived by the media to be bad with the censorship that is perceived as being appropriate. It all belongs together. Freikorp ( talk) 05:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Corrected one non-Freikorp input. I will respond in due course. Sam56mas ( talk) 21:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Contrasting Wikipedia entries on The Greens and the Australian Christian Lobby proves the bias of the site. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 114.73.114.9 ( talk) 01:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
An OLO comment which seems to sum up the situation. The motivations of the custodians of the Green and ACL Wikipedia sites were obvious after the publication of the above article in OLO. Firstly they removed any evidence of dispute from the Greens and ACL pages. Against the spirit of the Wikipedia Guidelines, which states: Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. However that removal was virtually predictable - refer to the futility of editing tags reference above. Like King Midas (sic) the Emperor and his lack of clothes, one editor decreed, despite the above, there is no dispute. They also said any opinion in OLO is not acceptable for Wikipedia, completely ignoring a prior Wikipedia determination to the contrary. Labelling the OLO article as 'laughable' represents other great intellectual insight enlisted to help resolve this problem. Another criticised someone who apparently removed some text within Wikipedia ACL. (pots and kettles come to mind) Further, the left-theologians deemed any contribution by a 'Christian' must be biased and therefore can not be accepted. While the comment noting that Wikipedia pages are updated by different authors, might represent a revelation to the statement's author, otherwise I am not sure of its relevance. In actually responding to the concerns raised, someone did fix two missing [citations needed]. While that is good he/she obviously did not read the OLO article and fixed the wrong citations.
That's it. Debate now over. Back to business-as-usual. The issue is not so much Wikipedia being corrupted. It is Wikipedia being used as propaganda. 42.241.205.134 ( talk) 04:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The entire paragraph had an WP:UNDUE problem for both its positioning and content. The fifty national church leaders 'trump' many times over all the other named organisations. As a measure of the current activities of the VCC check out the http://www.vcc.org.au/ website, which has been in this form for at least the last two months.
I have placed Vic and Qld, anti ACL positions - even added their respective controversy and criticism wordings in the 'Controversy and criticism' section. If the section on 'Support from other Christian groups' / 'Support' is to be reverted back, possibly it could be expanded to include:
1 Gillard agrees to address Christian lobby http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8516287/gillard-agrees-to-address-christian-lobby even http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/8780/Christian-Lobby-plans-cozy-night-with-Gillard.htm
2 The issue of gay marriage sits 12th in importance with even the supposedly "socially progressive" GetUp!'s membership. [1]
3 Had removed, but could put back: At a Senate hearing, Jim Wallace responded to questions regarding the VCC media release by saying that "a great majority, I would not claim 100 per cent, but certainly [a] great majority [of VCC members]," do support ACL's position on marriage. [2]
4 Could add the informative (not to mention positive) comments from the NSW Council of Churches re the comparative roles of the ACL and the churches. I could put statement from http://www.nswchurches.org/Resources/2CH%20Commentaries/C111218.pdf in a {{Quote . . . form now that {{quotes are apparently again permitted.
Interesting chronology on the use of Wiki {{Quotes:
1 Allowed > Revision as of 11:09, 16 August 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Gay rights: new information and references)
2 Disallowed > Revision as of 14:11, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Issues relating to family: in an attempt to shorten the article I previously removed the quote about the petition against the ACL, now I'm removing the quote about their statement, they are both available in the reference)
3 Disallowed > Revision as of 03:38, 16 June 2012 (edit) (undo) Freikorp (talk | contribs) (→Anzac Day 2011: shortening as per RrC suggestion)
At the end of the day the support, or "lack of it", for ACL and particularly its position on marriage will be decided, not on the pages of Wikipedia, but in Parliament House Canberra.
Sam56mas ( talk) 00:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard don't think the comment about Googling the F and C word etcetera are of significance, interestingly this is partially because they state the commentator "appears not to understand how the Google search facility works". Search for "Online opinion" at the noticeboard and see the comments. Accordingly that statement should not appear in the article.
I also do not think the statement in the article "After an alleged bashing, the ACL refused to participate in a debate on same-sex marriage on the grounds they fear "personal attack and vitriol" from gay activists." is accurate enough. The statement in the ACL reference reads "They made reference to the shocking and unfounded attempt to slur Michael Ferguson by ALP State MP Brenton Best, when he accused him of being “partly responsible” for the bashing of a gay man simply because he had been a member of a family values group some eight years before."
The alleged bashing does not appear a reason why the ACL pulled out of the debate, the issue seems to be the ACL are unhappy someone was accused of being "partially responsible" for bashing a gay man, not the attack itself. There is another point; the quote in the article does not mention that the person who was supposedly bashed was gay. Also the reference doesn't say who was bashed, or when they were bashed, or where they were basked so I think it is a very unreliable source for an allegation of an attack. In any case the bashing does not appear to be the only reason the ACL are pulling out of debates, even according to this reference. The ACL have been accusing gay activist of vitriol for a long time. This needs rewording. Your suggestions are welcome; I didn't have enough space to explain all of that in the edit summary. Freikorp ( talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if my edit summary was misleading, there just isn't enough space in those things to fully describe rationale sometimes. I put that information in there to point out that that is the only information www.onlineopinion.com has about him. He is not touted as an expert on anything, much less the topic at hand, and therefore his input is not sufficiently notable to be included.
Also, from WP:NOTRS
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight, or those with an apparent conflict of interest. Such sources include, but are not limited to, websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion.
From my understanding of the site, it is entirely based on personal opinion. Jonathanfu ( talk) 07:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Should we have this image in the article or not? Sam56mas has been removing the picture I put up here with a weird reason: "The pasting of 'Oddee' images on Wikipedia sites speaks a thousand words about your motivation". My motivation here is that Jim Wallace is an important person in ACL. I had taken a picture of him. The article would be improved with an image of Jim Wallace, rather than being a lot of unillustrated text. (I am thinking about taking a picture of their office, however unexciting that is). [My COI declaration: I have been to a couple of ACL events, and I saw Jim Wallace in a shopping centre on Friday night. One of my friends works in the ACL office. I am not opposed to most of their point of view.] Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I have a permanent solution to our ongoing debates about what is and is not appropriate to be added to the article. People already know whether they like or loathe the ACL before coming to the article, I think we are just preaching to our respective choirs by adding pro and con arguments. I suggest we remove all references and information from the article that come from sources with an obvious conflict of interest. As a newspaper aimed at the LGBT community, Sydney Star Observer obviously are not going to say many positive things about the ACL; we currently have four references from them. Video game websites are obviously not going to be happy the ACL keeps trying to ban games and increase censorship laws, we currently have four references from notable video game websites. Of course if a mainstream major newspaper reports what a video game (or other opposition) website has said that would be acceptable, but I proposing not quoting the ACL's opposition directly. At the other end of the spectrum "Christian Today" is used as a reference 11 times. To be objective we should again not be quoting Christian websites directly, they are of course much more likely to report on the ACL and are giving the article the same kind of undue weight as the opposition sites do.
So my proposal is removing all references with an obvious conflict of interest, and citing major mainstream sources as much as possible. References coming directly from the ACL should be confined entirely to non-controversial material, such as the info box, vision statement and organisation information. Further debate could be raised about quoting individuals who whilst writing in a neutralish source have an obvious conflict of interest themselves. Miranda Devine is quoted in the article, and she is openly a conservative Christian who is against some LGBT rights, Brian Greig on the other hand has been "involved in gay rights activism during the 1990s", and has a conflict of interest himself.
Your thoughts? If you all think this is a bad idea I won't be offended, it's just a suggestion. Freikorp ( talk) 23:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I will progressively clean-up this Wikipedia site, starting with the outrageous distortions (made by Wikipedia editors without any citation-backing) of what Jim Wallace actually said ( = propaganda) which yet-again demonstrates that (1) Wikipedia is being corrupted by, "claiming that such action is similar to Nazi propaganda used to justify the deprivation of rights to Jews" and that (2) Jim Wallace is correct.
After the clean-up, I will then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion Sam56mas ( talk) 22:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
As appropriate, WWP can refer to: World War2 Propaganda (WWP) (see above) or Weasel Word Phrase (WWP) or Where Were_you Phreikorp (WWP). Once Wikipedia Was Prestigious (WWP) but now Wikipedia is Compromised (WWP) (refer http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13833&page=0 ) Sam56mas ( talk) 22:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC) — Sam56mas ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So what !