![]() | 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 |
Why are these three opinion pieces (from the ABC citation, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') [1] acceptable, while this Miranda Devine (from the Herald Sun, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') one [2] is not ? Did we not just agree that, "opinion pieces are not acceptable sources of facts in Wikipedia" ? Sam56mas ( talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that picks up an issue that was raised in earlier discussions about the structuring of this page. The article shouldn't reflect things that may be transiently newsworthy but not of long-term significance to the article subject. I just removed a recently-inserted example of this, where the newspaper report quoted ACL's reaction to something Exit international were going to present/discuss at an event in Hobart designed to coincide with parliamentary debate on Euthanasia. My view is that material like this is a couple of steps removed from being important to the article subject (the ACL itself), notwithstanding it reflects ACL's views. The way it was inserted also didn't quite reflect the source. But that was not my main reason for deleting it (that would have been a reason to reword it, if it had been the only issue). Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
User Greenmixa posted the proceeding comment on my talk page. As their edit has been contested by other editors and as criticism and support of ACL actions has been a long contested debate at this article I am moving their conversation here.
In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users, who responded with statements such as "Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby should be ashamed, using ANZAC day to push a homophobic and racist agenda."" I would be more than happy to flesh out the criticism back to its original size if that helps clarify 'criticism from members of the public' to the reader.
The group of Australia Christians who cirticised Wallace specifically did not have a denomination at the time of the petition launch, as they were reportedly against organised Christianity. Perhaps we can reword what is currently written to something more like "A petition was started encouraging Australian Christians to state that the ACL does not represent their views" for clarity.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking regarding the 250 people signing the petition. If you're questioning why a petition with relatively few signers has ben included, the reason it has been included is that it has the time frame - "within the first 24 hours", which gives the reader an idea of how many of Jim Wallace's twitter followers were immediately angered by his comments. As with any data in an article about an organisation, it is designed to give a neutral reader information on what the organisation does and how people responds to their actions. Freikorp ( talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I've noticed others not happy about this edit and they have been quickly over turned. I have to wonder how such broad language has passed in the first instance. Of the 14 editors all contributions seem to be fiercely irreligious, for the sake of fairness and the benefit of the community I would ask these portions be re-removed.
For those anti ACL contributors I would say this, that if a completely accurate portrayal of a person or situation is not given then formal responses cant be determined especially by those that may in the future like to voice their opinions against him.
To the substance as given above by User:Freikorp"In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users"
The premise of the argument is invalid as the subjective 'public' cannot be identified through any means let alone twiter all of which forms a highly irregular POV. There is no national consensus legally possible outside a regulated election environment.
If the subsequent 'group' are from no denomination and cannot be identified then how does it form such a heavy part of the opinion within this article. In like manner we could gauge qualified support at the time from their facebook entry if some would please?
Once again twitter followers are not reflective of neutral information, any unregulated information gathering can be manipulated for political ends, especially in consideration of public stats in approaching hastags that explains one side of politics using the platform by a factor of almost 50%
Happy to continue these points with others.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmixa ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree Greenmixa and have written Freikorp privately too ...
Very happy to review any further POV sources from faith based organisations. The star observer is a free publication run by volunteer staff which should not be used in controversial sub topics. Happy to review them all one by one, starting with the removal of this bias and quite frankly amateur indulgence.
It does ideologues no favors to include it because it will cause many to identify and turn away from further reading. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Freikorp for the background info;
In line with Aus public service standards comments should be stood down when so blatant in their error. Aside from this the pov breaches wiki guidelines and further Legally the language is contemptible in consideration of what is implied by such a broad statement of "members of the public"
Consensus on such obvious matters reeks of an ideological hangup. If as a longtime wiki contributor you can't see this then we should immediately move forward onto a more formal dispute resolution without the filibuster which abets a social injustice.
In the argument of 'Reporting an established source' can you provide evidence to where your words or words most similar were used to imply electorates had reached a national consensus by implication of the use of these words....
"members of the public"
"A group of Australian Christians"
Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that small amendment while I appreciate your efforts for further accuracy I'm not sure it will adequately satisfy others. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 06:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned also elsewhere, with respect to the writer above I've looked at the contribution history and it seems to me that non favourable ACL commentators have maintained a watch over this page in a fivefold manner over many years. The fact that what might be a group of friends becoming aware of this and wanting to return a balance should be welcomed. If you really want a vibrant, fair and tolerant community you will encourage these newbies not accuse them.
In relation to standards spoken of above without a long explanation of current procedure around civil servants, I'd like to say that if an old fashioned philabuster is acceptable on a talk page in this self edited environment then legally contemptible language should be immediately stood down until resolution is complete, not the other way round. This is the model that our current parliament employs. If one should speak of things of a political nature similar principles should apply. What this useful resource is in danger of is having people stop reading the second anything of a controversial nature is presented, diminishing the scope of the community.
Furthermore the 'amateur indulgence' comment is completely reasonable, anyone on any page that employs the language 'members of the public' offers a rhetoric which is a literal impossibility in that its purposefully vague and open for interpretation on an already slopped mountain contextually. At the very least someone has recognised this and made the change. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenmixa. 2 of the 3 edit-warring single purpose pro-ACL accounts that we dealt with earlier this month have been banned indefinitely for violating wikipidea policy, with the third receiving a two-week ban. This brings the total number of editors of this article that have been given a ban for violating wikipedia policy to four, all pro-ACL editors and all single-purpose accounts. I wonder if John Miller will acknowledge this if he ever updates or writes another article about debates at this page? I suspect, however, that he will just ignore facts that are inconvenient for his agenda, just like he did last time. Freikorp ( talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As an Australian Christian, they do not represent me or ANY of the Christians I know. I really don't believe this article addresses the massive polarization this group has on Christians. In reading this article, it is almost as if they are actually Christian when we would say they are only Labeled as Christian, but as far from Christian as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.226.193 ( talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit changed the framing of Wallace's comments that led to Gillard pulling out of an ACL event. The wording was changed from homosexuality, to homosexual "lifestyle" (with those quote marks). I have changed it to "homosexual people", because this more closely matches wallace's message (and is also a term he used in the same interview). Although he used the word "lifestyle", that was only on listening to the first sentence of the interview. Listen again at around 0:52 where he talks about the poor outcomes of being a homosexual person - he doesn't use "lifestyle" on that occasion. Also, it is implied that he is talking about sexual orientation rather than "lifestyle", as he uses the term for heterosexuals as well (he contrasts "homosexual lifestyle" with "heterosexual lifestyle"), indicating that the key issue is sexual orientation. That is what the WP article should reflect. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A quote is a quote is a quote:
"PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will address the Australian Christian Lobby's national conference next month, despite its leader yesterday suggesting a homosexual "lifestyle" was more hazardous to health than smoking. The lobby's managing director, Jim Wallace, made the claim in Tasmania yesterday during a debate on same-sex marriage ... I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health - which it presents when it wants more money for health - are that is has higher rates of drug taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years", he told the audience. "The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke" (per http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pms-gay-smoking-furore-20120905-25ew6.html#ixzz30EU9Ickx) Quis separabit? 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Under the heading Same Sex Marriage, several pargraphs down, we have: "In 2011, ACL auspiced a coalition ..."
The Oxford, Merriam-Webter's and Collin's dictionaries at my disposal have all been consulted, and none of them allow for a past-tense verb form of "auspice". This should be one of: sponsored, convened, called, raised, or joined. Not 'auspiced'.
Wayne 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Australian Christian Lobby. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is not an opportunity for the ACL to document their activities and list their political views. That belongs on their website, not here. I'll be going through this article and removing what doesn't belong.
Anyone seeking further details on the ACL views may contact the ACL. This is an encyclopedia. We want it to provide a concise and comprehensive overview that is readable. - Shiftchange ( talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So the Views and lobbying efforts section needs a complete trim back to a summary paragraph on each topic. Its not appropriate to include detailed analysis, lists of activities or commentary here. For example, many political organisations make submissions. Its not remarkable and of little significance that this organisation made a statement about halal certification in Australia. That doesn't tell me about the organisation. It tells me what they are advocating and that doesn't belong here. Its the same with the "The ACL and churches have said" statements. We also need to cover its reduced influence and bring balance to the article with more critical statements. - Shiftchange ( talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Why does the name of ACL's building Eternity House wikilink to Arthur Stace? JennyOz ( talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian Christian Lobby. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not the place to outline any Christian views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Do not come to Wikipedia and advocate, propagandise or recruit. We don't like self-promotion here either. Its all typed up nicely and explained on this page. - Shiftchange ( talk) 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You must not come to Wikipedia and preach about trivial matters. Wikipedia must never, under any circumstance, be a voice for a particular view. This is why we are so popular with internet users. This is our cardinal rule. Please adhere to our policy. It works best that way.
We do not aim to contain all expression found elsewhere. This isn't anarchy, we have rules. Wikipedia is not here to promote things or make our readers contemplate a topic nor is it a form of personal communication. When this happens, it breaks all of these policies.
This type of editing is extremely poor quality and should be removed immediately. Its just a quote farm - a long list of quotations said about various things. This is trivia because anyone can say anything about anything. There is no value to that information from a referencing (building an encyclopedia) point of view because it is of very little consequence. Its not knowledge on the topic of the article. Its imparting knowledge of what was said about something. That is peripheral, off-topic and too trivial and therefore doesn't belong.
We aren't here to document the activities of any organisation in detail. We provide a summary of information, not little bits and pieces, not lists of activities, political positions or quotes. We don't want to copy and paste what was said about things into Wikipedia, except rarely and with good reason. This is laziness and can be a form of fraud where editors game the system to procure a vehicle or platform for ideological dissemination. When you let this stay it devalues all the other good editing we do. Its makes a mockery of the WikiProject Australia. When editors do this they are displaying a lack mutual respect. Its incivility. Some contributors are unable to constrain themselves from their deeply held religious views. Biased edit histories disprove any notion of neutrality. This editing is not done to improve our encyclopedia. It is done solely for the purpose of showcasing religious views. Help stop the biblethumping and push this dribble away. Please don't underestimate this threat and support me on this. - Shiftchange ( talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
... no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair ...
The issues list has been cut back, however there are so many references that some work will be required remove those not necessary to support the issues addressed and to keep the most relevant. Paul foord ( talk) 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Christian Lobby. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.acl.org.au/our-staff/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terminally_ill/submissions/sub422.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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 |
Why are these three opinion pieces (from the ABC citation, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') [1] acceptable, while this Miranda Devine (from the Herald Sun, clearly labelled as an 'opinion') one [2] is not ? Did we not just agree that, "opinion pieces are not acceptable sources of facts in Wikipedia" ? Sam56mas ( talk) 23:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that picks up an issue that was raised in earlier discussions about the structuring of this page. The article shouldn't reflect things that may be transiently newsworthy but not of long-term significance to the article subject. I just removed a recently-inserted example of this, where the newspaper report quoted ACL's reaction to something Exit international were going to present/discuss at an event in Hobart designed to coincide with parliamentary debate on Euthanasia. My view is that material like this is a couple of steps removed from being important to the article subject (the ACL itself), notwithstanding it reflects ACL's views. The way it was inserted also didn't quite reflect the source. But that was not my main reason for deleting it (that would have been a reason to reword it, if it had been the only issue). Regards, hamiltonstone ( talk) 11:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
User Greenmixa posted the proceeding comment on my talk page. As their edit has been contested by other editors and as criticism and support of ACL actions has been a long contested debate at this article I am moving their conversation here.
In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users, who responded with statements such as "Jim Wallace of the Australian Christian Lobby should be ashamed, using ANZAC day to push a homophobic and racist agenda."" I would be more than happy to flesh out the criticism back to its original size if that helps clarify 'criticism from members of the public' to the reader.
The group of Australia Christians who cirticised Wallace specifically did not have a denomination at the time of the petition launch, as they were reportedly against organised Christianity. Perhaps we can reword what is currently written to something more like "A petition was started encouraging Australian Christians to state that the ACL does not represent their views" for clarity.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking regarding the 250 people signing the petition. If you're questioning why a petition with relatively few signers has ben included, the reason it has been included is that it has the time frame - "within the first 24 hours", which gives the reader an idea of how many of Jim Wallace's twitter followers were immediately angered by his comments. As with any data in an article about an organisation, it is designed to give a neutral reader information on what the organisation does and how people responds to their actions. Freikorp ( talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I've noticed others not happy about this edit and they have been quickly over turned. I have to wonder how such broad language has passed in the first instance. Of the 14 editors all contributions seem to be fiercely irreligious, for the sake of fairness and the benefit of the community I would ask these portions be re-removed.
For those anti ACL contributors I would say this, that if a completely accurate portrayal of a person or situation is not given then formal responses cant be determined especially by those that may in the future like to voice their opinions against him.
To the substance as given above by User:Freikorp"In reply, "members of the public" was my way of shortening what was originally there, in order to appease pro-ACL editors. Previously the statement read words to the effect of: "Wallace was immediately criticised by other twitter users"
The premise of the argument is invalid as the subjective 'public' cannot be identified through any means let alone twiter all of which forms a highly irregular POV. There is no national consensus legally possible outside a regulated election environment.
If the subsequent 'group' are from no denomination and cannot be identified then how does it form such a heavy part of the opinion within this article. In like manner we could gauge qualified support at the time from their facebook entry if some would please?
Once again twitter followers are not reflective of neutral information, any unregulated information gathering can be manipulated for political ends, especially in consideration of public stats in approaching hastags that explains one side of politics using the platform by a factor of almost 50%
Happy to continue these points with others.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmixa ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree Greenmixa and have written Freikorp privately too ...
Very happy to review any further POV sources from faith based organisations. The star observer is a free publication run by volunteer staff which should not be used in controversial sub topics. Happy to review them all one by one, starting with the removal of this bias and quite frankly amateur indulgence.
It does ideologues no favors to include it because it will cause many to identify and turn away from further reading. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 03:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Freikorp for the background info;
In line with Aus public service standards comments should be stood down when so blatant in their error. Aside from this the pov breaches wiki guidelines and further Legally the language is contemptible in consideration of what is implied by such a broad statement of "members of the public"
Consensus on such obvious matters reeks of an ideological hangup. If as a longtime wiki contributor you can't see this then we should immediately move forward onto a more formal dispute resolution without the filibuster which abets a social injustice.
In the argument of 'Reporting an established source' can you provide evidence to where your words or words most similar were used to imply electorates had reached a national consensus by implication of the use of these words....
"members of the public"
"A group of Australian Christians"
Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 05:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that small amendment while I appreciate your efforts for further accuracy I'm not sure it will adequately satisfy others. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 06:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned also elsewhere, with respect to the writer above I've looked at the contribution history and it seems to me that non favourable ACL commentators have maintained a watch over this page in a fivefold manner over many years. The fact that what might be a group of friends becoming aware of this and wanting to return a balance should be welcomed. If you really want a vibrant, fair and tolerant community you will encourage these newbies not accuse them.
In relation to standards spoken of above without a long explanation of current procedure around civil servants, I'd like to say that if an old fashioned philabuster is acceptable on a talk page in this self edited environment then legally contemptible language should be immediately stood down until resolution is complete, not the other way round. This is the model that our current parliament employs. If one should speak of things of a political nature similar principles should apply. What this useful resource is in danger of is having people stop reading the second anything of a controversial nature is presented, diminishing the scope of the community.
Furthermore the 'amateur indulgence' comment is completely reasonable, anyone on any page that employs the language 'members of the public' offers a rhetoric which is a literal impossibility in that its purposefully vague and open for interpretation on an already slopped mountain contextually. At the very least someone has recognised this and made the change. Joshuacohen1 ( talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
See here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenmixa. 2 of the 3 edit-warring single purpose pro-ACL accounts that we dealt with earlier this month have been banned indefinitely for violating wikipidea policy, with the third receiving a two-week ban. This brings the total number of editors of this article that have been given a ban for violating wikipedia policy to four, all pro-ACL editors and all single-purpose accounts. I wonder if John Miller will acknowledge this if he ever updates or writes another article about debates at this page? I suspect, however, that he will just ignore facts that are inconvenient for his agenda, just like he did last time. Freikorp ( talk) 23:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As an Australian Christian, they do not represent me or ANY of the Christians I know. I really don't believe this article addresses the massive polarization this group has on Christians. In reading this article, it is almost as if they are actually Christian when we would say they are only Labeled as Christian, but as far from Christian as you can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.37.226.193 ( talk) 03:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A recent edit changed the framing of Wallace's comments that led to Gillard pulling out of an ACL event. The wording was changed from homosexuality, to homosexual "lifestyle" (with those quote marks). I have changed it to "homosexual people", because this more closely matches wallace's message (and is also a term he used in the same interview). Although he used the word "lifestyle", that was only on listening to the first sentence of the interview. Listen again at around 0:52 where he talks about the poor outcomes of being a homosexual person - he doesn't use "lifestyle" on that occasion. Also, it is implied that he is talking about sexual orientation rather than "lifestyle", as he uses the term for heterosexuals as well (he contrasts "homosexual lifestyle" with "heterosexual lifestyle"), indicating that the key issue is sexual orientation. That is what the WP article should reflect. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A quote is a quote is a quote:
"PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will address the Australian Christian Lobby's national conference next month, despite its leader yesterday suggesting a homosexual "lifestyle" was more hazardous to health than smoking. The lobby's managing director, Jim Wallace, made the claim in Tasmania yesterday during a debate on same-sex marriage ... I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health - which it presents when it wants more money for health - are that is has higher rates of drug taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years", he told the audience. "The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn't smoke" (per http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/pms-gay-smoking-furore-20120905-25ew6.html#ixzz30EU9Ickx) Quis separabit? 01:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Under the heading Same Sex Marriage, several pargraphs down, we have: "In 2011, ACL auspiced a coalition ..."
The Oxford, Merriam-Webter's and Collin's dictionaries at my disposal have all been consulted, and none of them allow for a past-tense verb form of "auspice". This should be one of: sponsored, convened, called, raised, or joined. Not 'auspiced'.
Wayne 07:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Australian Christian Lobby. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is not an opportunity for the ACL to document their activities and list their political views. That belongs on their website, not here. I'll be going through this article and removing what doesn't belong.
Anyone seeking further details on the ACL views may contact the ACL. This is an encyclopedia. We want it to provide a concise and comprehensive overview that is readable. - Shiftchange ( talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
So the Views and lobbying efforts section needs a complete trim back to a summary paragraph on each topic. Its not appropriate to include detailed analysis, lists of activities or commentary here. For example, many political organisations make submissions. Its not remarkable and of little significance that this organisation made a statement about halal certification in Australia. That doesn't tell me about the organisation. It tells me what they are advocating and that doesn't belong here. Its the same with the "The ACL and churches have said" statements. We also need to cover its reduced influence and bring balance to the article with more critical statements. - Shiftchange ( talk) 11:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Why does the name of ACL's building Eternity House wikilink to Arthur Stace? JennyOz ( talk) 05:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Australian Christian Lobby. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not the place to outline any Christian views. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Do not come to Wikipedia and advocate, propagandise or recruit. We don't like self-promotion here either. Its all typed up nicely and explained on this page. - Shiftchange ( talk) 07:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You must not come to Wikipedia and preach about trivial matters. Wikipedia must never, under any circumstance, be a voice for a particular view. This is why we are so popular with internet users. This is our cardinal rule. Please adhere to our policy. It works best that way.
We do not aim to contain all expression found elsewhere. This isn't anarchy, we have rules. Wikipedia is not here to promote things or make our readers contemplate a topic nor is it a form of personal communication. When this happens, it breaks all of these policies.
This type of editing is extremely poor quality and should be removed immediately. Its just a quote farm - a long list of quotations said about various things. This is trivia because anyone can say anything about anything. There is no value to that information from a referencing (building an encyclopedia) point of view because it is of very little consequence. Its not knowledge on the topic of the article. Its imparting knowledge of what was said about something. That is peripheral, off-topic and too trivial and therefore doesn't belong.
We aren't here to document the activities of any organisation in detail. We provide a summary of information, not little bits and pieces, not lists of activities, political positions or quotes. We don't want to copy and paste what was said about things into Wikipedia, except rarely and with good reason. This is laziness and can be a form of fraud where editors game the system to procure a vehicle or platform for ideological dissemination. When you let this stay it devalues all the other good editing we do. Its makes a mockery of the WikiProject Australia. When editors do this they are displaying a lack mutual respect. Its incivility. Some contributors are unable to constrain themselves from their deeply held religious views. Biased edit histories disprove any notion of neutrality. This editing is not done to improve our encyclopedia. It is done solely for the purpose of showcasing religious views. Help stop the biblethumping and push this dribble away. Please don't underestimate this threat and support me on this. - Shiftchange ( talk) 02:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
... no one turns up to support or add comment. I for one think Shiftchange's current reward of total silence from others is unfair ...
The issues list has been cut back, however there are so many references that some work will be required remove those not necessary to support the issues addressed and to keep the most relevant. Paul foord ( talk) 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Australian Christian Lobby. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.acl.org.au/our-staff/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/terminally_ill/submissions/sub422.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)