This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coalition for Marriage 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the fact that it is important due to the ongoing debate in British politics on same-sex marriage being allowed.. — 95.149.186.125 ( talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If you just go to Google and search in news for Coalition for Marraige you'll find a shed load of references from most major newspapers in the UK. I'm not going to put them in cause it's not my article but if anyone wants to it could save the page ( Atraxus ( talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC))
I think the section has too much detail about the CMF, and some links appear incorrect. The only relevant information is that the CMF and the Coalition for Marriage share the same postal address (which I haven't checked) Damson88 ( talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Damson88 here. It is not relevant that C4M share an address with CMF. They aren't the same organisation. I've tried to edit the piece, but merely get accused of engaging in an edit war with Jenova 20. If somebody could make a judgment on this, that would be great. Crayfishvictoria ( talk) 12:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Crayfishvictoria is right here. CMF and C4M might share the same office, but information about CMF hardly becomes relevant because this is the case. As has been said, they are two different organisations. I would advise the two lines that Jenova20 refers to be removed. Maybe added to the CMF page instead? RackinRibs ( talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for Crayfish, but my view is no CMF reference is relevant here. They share a building. So do many other organisations. What I meant with regard to the CMF page is, why not add the controversy about them on their own page? (I haven't been over to the page to check whether that info is there yet or not.) RackinRibs ( talk) 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. RackinRibs ( talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman ( talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This entry should be about the ORGANIZATION called "Coalition for Marriage", not about the political struggle pro and con or public opinion on a given question, unless someone does a poll that asks: what do you think about the group that calls itself the Coalition for Marriage. That stuff belongs in Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with public opinion so I will start a new heading. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have limited my work on this entry because I find the sectioning unworkable. Separating activities from coverage from criticism seems to frustrate any attempt at a narrative thread. Perhaps that's because I think as a historian, so I'd like to have chronological flow. Starting with "was founded in XXXX". Then get dates on everything.
Or consider:
Using "press coverage" as a heading is just unworkable to me. We're trying to describe actions and positions and claims. Of course these things were covered in the press. The press coverage = the citations. What these actions etc are = the organization's work/history. It's C4M's work/history that's the subject of the entry. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe Jenova20 thinks this shouldn't have been deleted.
In May 2012, the coalition and religious blogger "Archbishop Cranmer" accused the Advertising Standards Agency of bias after the chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who is himself openly gay, recorded and released a video for the Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign for marriage equality whereby supporters of same-sex marriage create and upload videos to YouTube and other video-sharing sites, affirming their support. "Cranmer" called on Lord Smith to resign from his post, while an ASA spokesperson refused to dismiss Smith, but did agree there was a conflict of interest and he would therefore not vote. [1]
I don't see how this relates to C4M. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's lame and uninteresting I'd say. The more important point would be that C4M used the petitions in 2 ways, to claim it was a mass movement based on big numbers and to claim that leaders/elites supported its efforts. And I'd expect to see some opposition asking where the other elites are: medical professionals and scientists, for example. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've readded the section about The Huffington Post and the leaflets. The text in them was clearly controversial and whoever deleted it before also took all the references with it, which have been restored. It also had a misguided claim from the C4M which has been repeated a bit, but still unproven of "most gay people oppose the plans". It's baloney, it's false, and it's reliably sourced. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
How did the coalition gather signatures? We should include their statements of X thousand circulars mailed. I'm sure they placed ads but we don't say they did or where they appeared, only that WI rejected them.
Did C4M issue progress reports? Can we say that it said it had X thousand by (date) and X thousand by (later date)? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 14:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So far:
Source 4 is good. The C4M was claiming for months that the government would force religions to conduct marriages if they did not want to or the courts would. The C4M has never corrected that as far as i have seen. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
We already cover some criticism of the quality and true count of signatures and it is extremely unenlightening. One side makes a claim and the other side says not so fast.
Didn't anyone reject the very notion of a petition drive? Didn't an MP say "this is not a referendum" and "I can represent my constituents without this sort of thing. I don't need some advocacy group telling me what my constituents want." Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"In the news" does not mean in Pink News. Let's go for some respectable national newspapers.
RackinRibs (
talk)
15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Did C4M ever try to demonstrate that as a coalition it included non-Chistians? They seem to claim big numbers and elites, but I'd also expect any campaign like this to demonstrate breadth? No significant RC representation? The more conservative Jewish community? Didn't someone ask such religious leaders if they were part of or supported C4M's efforts? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think they took any support they got and made it public if it benefited them, but just a few days back they complained that christians were ignored by the government and that minority religions got too much attention during the bills debate. They like media attention, it's free advertising. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Criticism is not a thing in and of itself. We have criticism of the signatures so it belongs under the petition campaign. Breaking criticism apart as a generic category invites confusion. Saying who criticized what and when helps the reader understand the process. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coalition for Marriage. 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) 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Coalition for Marriage 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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the fact that it is important due to the ongoing debate in British politics on same-sex marriage being allowed.. — 95.149.186.125 ( talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
If you just go to Google and search in news for Coalition for Marraige you'll find a shed load of references from most major newspapers in the UK. I'm not going to put them in cause it's not my article but if anyone wants to it could save the page ( Atraxus ( talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC))
I think the section has too much detail about the CMF, and some links appear incorrect. The only relevant information is that the CMF and the Coalition for Marriage share the same postal address (which I haven't checked) Damson88 ( talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Damson88 here. It is not relevant that C4M share an address with CMF. They aren't the same organisation. I've tried to edit the piece, but merely get accused of engaging in an edit war with Jenova 20. If somebody could make a judgment on this, that would be great. Crayfishvictoria ( talk) 12:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think Crayfishvictoria is right here. CMF and C4M might share the same office, but information about CMF hardly becomes relevant because this is the case. As has been said, they are two different organisations. I would advise the two lines that Jenova20 refers to be removed. Maybe added to the CMF page instead? RackinRibs ( talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't speak for Crayfish, but my view is no CMF reference is relevant here. They share a building. So do many other organisations. What I meant with regard to the CMF page is, why not add the controversy about them on their own page? (I haven't been over to the page to check whether that info is there yet or not.) RackinRibs ( talk) 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. RackinRibs ( talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman ( talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
This entry should be about the ORGANIZATION called "Coalition for Marriage", not about the political struggle pro and con or public opinion on a given question, unless someone does a poll that asks: what do you think about the group that calls itself the Coalition for Marriage. That stuff belongs in Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with public opinion so I will start a new heading. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have limited my work on this entry because I find the sectioning unworkable. Separating activities from coverage from criticism seems to frustrate any attempt at a narrative thread. Perhaps that's because I think as a historian, so I'd like to have chronological flow. Starting with "was founded in XXXX". Then get dates on everything.
Or consider:
Using "press coverage" as a heading is just unworkable to me. We're trying to describe actions and positions and claims. Of course these things were covered in the press. The press coverage = the citations. What these actions etc are = the organization's work/history. It's C4M's work/history that's the subject of the entry. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe Jenova20 thinks this shouldn't have been deleted.
In May 2012, the coalition and religious blogger "Archbishop Cranmer" accused the Advertising Standards Agency of bias after the chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who is himself openly gay, recorded and released a video for the Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign for marriage equality whereby supporters of same-sex marriage create and upload videos to YouTube and other video-sharing sites, affirming their support. "Cranmer" called on Lord Smith to resign from his post, while an ASA spokesperson refused to dismiss Smith, but did agree there was a conflict of interest and he would therefore not vote. [1]
I don't see how this relates to C4M. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
It's lame and uninteresting I'd say. The more important point would be that C4M used the petitions in 2 ways, to claim it was a mass movement based on big numbers and to claim that leaders/elites supported its efforts. And I'd expect to see some opposition asking where the other elites are: medical professionals and scientists, for example. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I've readded the section about The Huffington Post and the leaflets. The text in them was clearly controversial and whoever deleted it before also took all the references with it, which have been restored. It also had a misguided claim from the C4M which has been repeated a bit, but still unproven of "most gay people oppose the plans". It's baloney, it's false, and it's reliably sourced. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
How did the coalition gather signatures? We should include their statements of X thousand circulars mailed. I'm sure they placed ads but we don't say they did or where they appeared, only that WI rejected them.
Did C4M issue progress reports? Can we say that it said it had X thousand by (date) and X thousand by (later date)? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 14:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So far:
Source 4 is good. The C4M was claiming for months that the government would force religions to conduct marriages if they did not want to or the courts would. The C4M has never corrected that as far as i have seen. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
We already cover some criticism of the quality and true count of signatures and it is extremely unenlightening. One side makes a claim and the other side says not so fast.
Didn't anyone reject the very notion of a petition drive? Didn't an MP say "this is not a referendum" and "I can represent my constituents without this sort of thing. I don't need some advocacy group telling me what my constituents want." Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 16:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
"In the news" does not mean in Pink News. Let's go for some respectable national newspapers.
RackinRibs (
talk)
15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Did C4M ever try to demonstrate that as a coalition it included non-Chistians? They seem to claim big numbers and elites, but I'd also expect any campaign like this to demonstrate breadth? No significant RC representation? The more conservative Jewish community? Didn't someone ask such religious leaders if they were part of or supported C4M's efforts? Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 15:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I think they took any support they got and made it public if it benefited them, but just a few days back they complained that christians were ignored by the government and that minority religions got too much attention during the bills debate. They like media attention, it's free advertising. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 15:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Criticism is not a thing in and of itself. We have criticism of the signatures so it belongs under the petition campaign. Breaking criticism apart as a generic category invites confusion. Saying who criticized what and when helps the reader understand the process. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coalition for Marriage. 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) 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)