This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Marriage Equality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sections detailing views on alternate forms of marriage has been added to detail the known views of the AME with regards to certain minority groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.7.131 ( talk) 16:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Roughly half of the article appears to be devoted to a multiple-subheading synopsis of one article in which AME's opposition to incest, polygamy, and so on was outlined. I think these would be more appropriate condensed into a couple of sentences. Does anyone disagree? Wikitorrens T 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like the opinion of other editors on the new section added to the article, entitled "Australian Marriage Equality's impact". The section begins with "The impact of Australian Marriage Equality's lobbying for marriage equality / same-sex marriage (SSM), as of May 2014, can be summarised as follows". However no reference in the section is about the specific effectiveness of AME, this is just a collection of general events regarding SSM with an obvious bias against SSM. Original wording was "SSM was approved, but subsequently quashed in the Australian Capital Territory." No attention was given to the notable fact that SSM was approved for the first time in Australia's history, emphasis was only given to the fact it was overturned. But even though SSM was approved for the first time, how much of its approval can be directly attributed to the efforts of AME? AME is not the only organisation lobbying for gay rights. Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia, which is covered in far greater and more balanced detail at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Freikorp ( talk) 00:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Freikorp asked that a section labelled "AME's impact" be reviewed. He wrote . . . . Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia . . . . He wrote to other editors seeking their opinions. Those other editors have made their contributions, changing the header and considerably increasing the size of the section. The additions have many Wikipedia-issues, not the least of which are those initially raised. Freikorp, "an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community", over to you for a NPOV fix. Sam56mas ( talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A01C:5900:899E:947A:A13A:76C3 ( talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I just found your site and wanted to say I support the right to leave marriage as it is, man and woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.69.145 ( talk) 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tried and tried to find the link to the article "Gay Couple Married in Canada blast Australian Government". 365gay.com. 28 December 2005. Retrieved 23 July 2012. mentioned on other wiki pages, but click the link and it goes to a liposuction clinic. Irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.206.106 ( talk) 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Full-Galaxy-Poll-Results-2010.pdfWhen 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) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Australian Marriage Equality article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The sections detailing views on alternate forms of marriage has been added to detail the known views of the AME with regards to certain minority groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.162.7.131 ( talk) 16:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Roughly half of the article appears to be devoted to a multiple-subheading synopsis of one article in which AME's opposition to incest, polygamy, and so on was outlined. I think these would be more appropriate condensed into a couple of sentences. Does anyone disagree? Wikitorrens T 08:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I would like the opinion of other editors on the new section added to the article, entitled "Australian Marriage Equality's impact". The section begins with "The impact of Australian Marriage Equality's lobbying for marriage equality / same-sex marriage (SSM), as of May 2014, can be summarised as follows". However no reference in the section is about the specific effectiveness of AME, this is just a collection of general events regarding SSM with an obvious bias against SSM. Original wording was "SSM was approved, but subsequently quashed in the Australian Capital Territory." No attention was given to the notable fact that SSM was approved for the first time in Australia's history, emphasis was only given to the fact it was overturned. But even though SSM was approved for the first time, how much of its approval can be directly attributed to the efforts of AME? AME is not the only organisation lobbying for gay rights. Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia, which is covered in far greater and more balanced detail at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia. Freikorp ( talk) 00:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Freikorp asked that a section labelled "AME's impact" be reviewed. He wrote . . . . Some of the references don't even mention AME at all. How can this section therefore be considered to cover AME's impact? The section is just the general history of SSM in Australia . . . . He wrote to other editors seeking their opinions. Those other editors have made their contributions, changing the header and considerably increasing the size of the section. The additions have many Wikipedia-issues, not the least of which are those initially raised. Freikorp, "an ally of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans community", over to you for a NPOV fix. Sam56mas ( talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
ri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A01C:5900:899E:947A:A13A:76C3 ( talk) 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I just found your site and wanted to say I support the right to leave marriage as it is, man and woman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.69.145 ( talk) 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Tried and tried to find the link to the article "Gay Couple Married in Canada blast Australian Government". 365gay.com. 28 December 2005. Retrieved 23 July 2012. mentioned on other wiki pages, but click the link and it goes to a liposuction clinic. Irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.206.106 ( talk) 06:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Full-Galaxy-Poll-Results-2010.pdfWhen 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) 23:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Australian Marriage Equality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)