Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking through the edit history it seems there's been some back and forth between editors removing an assertion in the first section that GetUp was founded with funding by George Soros, then other editors reverting the removal. I've removed the reference to Soros and hope that editors will engage here before reverting it back.
My reasons for removing it are as follows:
Now GetUp! claims on its website 589,261 members. However that number has been static for the last month. With two groups 'GetUp!' and 'Market for Change' lobbying against Harvey Norman, they could only motivate less than 9% of GetUp! members to sign their petition. Is the GetUp! membership-number 'high' or GetUp! membership-activism 'low' ? Speedrailsm ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no case to be made that GetUp! is not left-wing; it is associated with exclusively left-wing causes, and it is frequently described as such or similar. "Progressive" is a weasel word that is neither clearly defined nor in common use in Australia. For its part, the site calls itself politically "independent", a self-description Wikipedia can not, alone, ascribe the status of fact. I would suggest that "left-wing" is neutral in terms of its connotations and appropriate for use here; "socialist" or similar could be construed as a pejorative term. Joestella 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
---
GetUp is left wing - Even the chaser made a joke at GetUp - 'with their vote for anyone (just not the Liberal Party) campaign' joke. I am going to add to the article that it is seen as a left leaning organisation and that it has been accused of being partisan. Also the first 3 paragraphs seem to be written by GetUp themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.235.101 ( talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that mass emails are not taken seriously by politicians. Any strong linkage of GetUp's campaigns to the success or failure of particular pieces of legislation should be backed by sources - statements such as "GetUp campaigns were recognized as playing an important role" need to be substantiated. GetUp never works alone on causes, it generally works in parallel to (though independently of) the labour, environmental and other movements. Joestella 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, GetUp's website has removed references to at least one past campaign, concerning SnowyHydro's privatisation. It's one of the few in which the site could claim success. Any ideas on how to make the past campaign list more authoritative than GetUp's apparently faulty recollections? Joestella 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is a blog really notable enough to be referred to on Wikipedia? I think not... I propose deletion. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed:
Another criticism of the site concerns its effectiveness. According to the National Forum blog Ambit Gambit, GetUp! will fail to influence voters much as Moveon.org, on which the Australian site is based, did in the United States.
"By giving voice to left-wing opinion they exert a force on centre left parties which pulls them away not just from the centre, but their own working class constituencies," wrote Ambit Gambit, "MoveOn was run by people who thought the reason that they lost the first time was because they weren't singing the song stridently enough."
Further, the blog considers the site to be directed primarily at potential activists, not conservative politicians:
When you look at the site, the ad isn't really directed at the government at all. It's meant to recruit the people sending the URL around who will presumably look at the ad before forwarding. ... They say things like "If only one man controls the media, then we get only one side of the story", "Don't keep putting George Bush's interests in front of Australia's", and "Australia is still a democracy". From our focus group research, I'd expect these phrases to resonate with left of centre voters, not Coalition MPs. [1]
Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
References
This is rubbish. GetUp! is not a far left lobby group - I am part of GetUp! and I would never have described myself as such. In fact, I would not describe any of the members of my branch as "far left". We conduct meetings and individuals say whatever they like and express their opinions; there is no "party line" like there would be in a political party. So this is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.52.12 ( talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy, uninformed nonsense about the environment , climate change alarmism, anti Hanson claptrap and the usual platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies. Sounds pretty far left to anyone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.194.140 ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have read the comments above and have added "Non-partisan" to the first para to make it clear to uninformed readers that Getup is not a political party. I also agree that it is not "leftist", certainly not "far left", and disagree that "progressive" is not current usage in Australia. I am a very well-informed Australian. Melba1 ( talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am a teacher, painfully aware that my students use Wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source of information (!). They are also politically unaware and generally uninformed for the most part, and unable to infer things that most Wiki contributors would. So it is essential to make entries as clear and unambiguous as possible. Also DO NOT ASSUME that your readers' first language is English! Wikipedia is accessed by many millions of people whose first language is not English, and whose ability to interpret English sentences is therefore somewhat limited. Melba1 ( talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sections on the organisation's structure and goals are sourced only to the organisation's web site. We need external sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I still think the article as a whole is not an advertisting. - Halloleo ( talk) 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
onesource|section}}
(or {{
onesource|lede}}
) for each section where it's accurate? That's really the only problem I see. If that's done, I have no objection to removal of {{
advert}}. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC){{
onesource|...}}
is a good heading. :-)
Halloleo (
talk)
06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of contention regarding whether or not GetUp is an politically-neutral organisation.
However as a Green/Labor voter, I think it's naive to think that GetUp is politically-neutral. They are clearly left of the political centre.
If GetUp is politically-neutral, then Fox News in the US is politically-neutral too.
Sources:
2010 Federal Election scorecard clearly focuses on the strengths of the Greens in four policy areas: healthcare, pollution, "fair go" and jobs & infrastructure. https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/gtelectiondayscorecarddemo.jpg
Focusing (Federal) Election 2010 attention on three left-wing social issues: Mental Health, Refugees, Climate Change http://election2010.getup.org.au/
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/getup-open-to-limits-on-donations-20100826-13uay.html "The left-leaning advocacy group GetUp!"
http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-life/surfs-up-for-abbott-in-getup-bid-20100616-yggn.html "The left-wing group" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintslady ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
More links:
Election 2010 scorecard page that hosts the scorecard #1 http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/election2010&id=1344
Election 2010 scorecard page that hosts the scorecard #2 http://www.getup.org.au/community/gettogethers/series.php?id=30
Blog showing a copy of the scorecard http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2010/08/getup-election-day-scorecard.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintslady ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This makes it fairly clear that they are very much so a partisan entity. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Claims about Getup membership could be viewed as misleading, but the tone of that section of the page is clearly and obviously prejudicial in nature. The intention of "Brandonfarris" in posting that section, and seemingly other deliberately negative edits elsewhere throughout the page, is very clear.
And again, the nature of the sources referenced is the most dubious thing about that section. As Nick-D said when he banned "Brandonfarris", the person responsible for posting that section, and the "Labor party front" section, and the "Spam" section, use of dubious negative material from people like Andrew Bolt isn't appropriate.
All of this material is clearly and intentionally negative, and it is part of the overall and transparently obvious agenda pursued by "Brandonfarris" around Wikipedia, as stated by Nick-D a little while ago on this person's talk page.
Andrew Bolt, Quadrant Magazine, and the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, are not reliable or neutral sources. Which is part of the reason why we have a media inquiry taking place in Australia now.
Liberal MPs Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz and Andrew Robb are certainly not reliable or neutral sources either. Their rhetoric does not constitute any sort of legitimate evidence.
And the assertions made about donations are false, which can easily been seen by anyone who views the Getup page on their website, which provides ample details of their donations.
Therefore, most of the material in those three sections should not be there. Sam 3982 ( talk) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a Murdoch writer uses those words does not somehow automatically make it so, nor does flagging a boycott of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.
Furthermore, there are clearly many campaigns that Getup are engaged in which are not somehow "exclusively left-wing causes". I can easily go through the list if need be, but people should be doing this sort of research for themselves when discussing this issue, rather than making sweeping claims without any substance to support them.
Last time I checked, Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting in a balanced impartial manner, avoiding advocacy.
All evidence within this Getup page suggests that such standards are not being applied here! Sam 3982 ( talk) 09:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Left wing claim is verified by the conversation https://theconversation.com/new-style-lobbying-how-getup-channels-australians-voices-into-politics-60625 as so i have updated the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The tone of a certain unsigned and anonymous poster on this page, and use of offensive innuendos like "climate change alarmism", "anti Hanson claptrap", "pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy", and "platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies.", rather gives away the fact that it is this poster whose opinions are a long way to the right, not Getup somehow being "far" to the left.
Here are some facts:
A Lowy Institute poll this year showed 81% of Australians support action on global warming.
A Galaxy poll this year showed 62% of Australians support same-sex marriage.
And it's safe to say the vast majority of Australians are also opposed to Pauline Hanson. Her failure to even win a NSW Legislative Council at the last state election there, speaks volumes in this regard.
Sam 3982 ( talk) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Getup have provided a page on their website which discloses donations made to the organisation. Thus, I have included this information on the page here.
Their disclosure page is at http://www.getup.org.au/about/disclosure Sam 3982 ( talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This Wikipedia GetUp! article does not belong to GetUp! or to its supporters. Considering GetUp!'s high(est?) profile campaigns: Supporting David Hicks, Climate Action and Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?), based on any assessment, these are left-of-centre issues. GetUp! is a left-leaning Australian activist group. Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz, Andrew Robb and Andrew Bolt are notable persons. Stating the opinion of a notable person is always acceptable. GetUp! gives high prominance to 'JOIN THE MOVEMENT OF 588,913 AUSTRALIANS' with the implication all these people have signed up as GetUp! members. GetUp! does not explain this dubious connection.
Leave the GetUp! article as it is at 10:35, 13 December 2011. Jacksotherbrother ( talk) 23:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?)"
Pretty well actually! Overwhelmingly approved in the plebiscite and now legal :) 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Could this be discussed, rather than battling to and fro in the article? There's nothing uncommon about over-estimating the numbers of supporters at a rally and I would be astonished if GetUp! didn't do this, but we can't say that they are giving inflated crowd estimates if we don't have a good source of some Getup! spokesgnome giving out numbers - and a report of a different and way smaller number from the police and/or media. If we don't have good sources, then the claims, accurate and credible though they may be, cannot remain here. -- Pete ( talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
While these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I believe the way the information has been put together (regarding 5000 or 10,000 people at the gay marriage rally) violates WP:SYNTH. No reliable source in the article has commented on GetUp! overestimating crowd sources here, this is just one editor saying A and B therefore C. I'd rather discuss it here than edit-war so are there any counter-arguments to me removing the whole sentence? Freikorp ( talk) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Accepting, these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I have presented the rally numbers in NPOV format. Speedrailsm ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GetUp!. 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.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/25/Possibly_the_Most_Beautiful_Ad_for_Marriage_Equality_Weve_Seen/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://m.samesame.com.au/features/8052/Every-float-every-group-Mardi-Gras-Parade-2012-revealed.htm?page=3{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aap.newscentre.com.au/acf/120209/library/forests_and_marine/27842334.htmlWhen 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) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Today there is a very interesting article in The Saturday Paper - labeled "exclusive" - which reveals that Malcolm Turnbull sought help from GetUp (though GetUp turned him down) to lobby Liberal party MPs to vote Turnbull into leadership over Abbott. The article has lots of other stuff of interest in it too, of even more relevance, which is not in the Wikipedia article. To be honest, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse and there seems to be more content in the "Talk" page then in the Wikipedia Article itself! I hesitate to enter the information myself, as the climate on the Talk page seems a bit toxic and I'm not interested in wading into an edit war. For those braver than myself, here is the article https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/10/28/exclusive-turnbull-sought-getup-help-before-spill/15091092005412?utm_source=tsp_website&utm_campaign=social_desktop_copy_link&utm_medium=social_share Powertothepeople ( talk) 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor with ip 60.241.207.253 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a significant bit of text regarding a website critical of GetUp! apparently run by the Liberal Party. I don't see any coverage of the website. My concern is first that this is undue weight and second the addition says the website claims all sorts of things, but the website mostly attributes those claims to anonymous sources. The editor has also removed text which reported the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission investigation. I am not Australian and have no understanding of the politics, but this looks like an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt on political opponents. Since the IP editor has reverted my change, I will take it here before changing anything again. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
GetUp is currently in a fight with the Australian Muslim population by trying to pressure the Australian government to stop live sheep trade. This of course is unacceptable to muslims who only eat halal foods. Plenty of citations are available, should be included, as this is a breakaway from GetUp’s original constituency that was quite broad in appeal 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:7834:C7B:7EB8:A501 ( talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Being opposed to the live sheep trade doesn't mean GetUp are "anti-Muslim"
It's entirely possible to slaughter livestock according to hahal requirements in Australia and ship frozen instead. 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Very bewildered at how describing them as an activist organisation, in addition to the already existing description of a lobbying organisation, could be removed. While we're at, surely they're more of an activist organisation since they mainly target the public rather than politicians. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Replace 'left wing' with 'progressive', since this is what the given reference says: it does not say that Getup is left wing. To justify the use of 'left wing', a reference from a reliable, non-partisan source should be provided and it has no been. My source for this change is the one already given as reference 1: Vromen, Ariadne. "New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians' voices into politics". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 November 2016. Strayan ( talk) 01:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A million members? Really? Do these supposed members pay annual dues or are recorded in a roll or vote in annual general meetings? Or are they just the total of anyone who has ever signed one of their online petitions over the span of 17 years? -- Pete ( talk) 10:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The use of the exclamation mark after the name is inconsistent in the article and in the sources. I can't find a rule to follow for this - so hoping someone else can, or else just agree on one or the other. I know it's used in the logo and on their website, but it can look a bit odd if you want to use the possessive form. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Looking through the edit history it seems there's been some back and forth between editors removing an assertion in the first section that GetUp was founded with funding by George Soros, then other editors reverting the removal. I've removed the reference to Soros and hope that editors will engage here before reverting it back.
My reasons for removing it are as follows:
Now GetUp! claims on its website 589,261 members. However that number has been static for the last month. With two groups 'GetUp!' and 'Market for Change' lobbying against Harvey Norman, they could only motivate less than 9% of GetUp! members to sign their petition. Is the GetUp! membership-number 'high' or GetUp! membership-activism 'low' ? Speedrailsm ( talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no case to be made that GetUp! is not left-wing; it is associated with exclusively left-wing causes, and it is frequently described as such or similar. "Progressive" is a weasel word that is neither clearly defined nor in common use in Australia. For its part, the site calls itself politically "independent", a self-description Wikipedia can not, alone, ascribe the status of fact. I would suggest that "left-wing" is neutral in terms of its connotations and appropriate for use here; "socialist" or similar could be construed as a pejorative term. Joestella 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
---
GetUp is left wing - Even the chaser made a joke at GetUp - 'with their vote for anyone (just not the Liberal Party) campaign' joke. I am going to add to the article that it is seen as a left leaning organisation and that it has been accused of being partisan. Also the first 3 paragraphs seem to be written by GetUp themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.235.101 ( talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that mass emails are not taken seriously by politicians. Any strong linkage of GetUp's campaigns to the success or failure of particular pieces of legislation should be backed by sources - statements such as "GetUp campaigns were recognized as playing an important role" need to be substantiated. GetUp never works alone on causes, it generally works in parallel to (though independently of) the labour, environmental and other movements. Joestella 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Oddly, GetUp's website has removed references to at least one past campaign, concerning SnowyHydro's privatisation. It's one of the few in which the site could claim success. Any ideas on how to make the past campaign list more authoritative than GetUp's apparently faulty recollections? Joestella 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is a blog really notable enough to be referred to on Wikipedia? I think not... I propose deletion. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I have removed:
Another criticism of the site concerns its effectiveness. According to the National Forum blog Ambit Gambit, GetUp! will fail to influence voters much as Moveon.org, on which the Australian site is based, did in the United States.
"By giving voice to left-wing opinion they exert a force on centre left parties which pulls them away not just from the centre, but their own working class constituencies," wrote Ambit Gambit, "MoveOn was run by people who thought the reason that they lost the first time was because they weren't singing the song stridently enough."
Further, the blog considers the site to be directed primarily at potential activists, not conservative politicians:
When you look at the site, the ad isn't really directed at the government at all. It's meant to recruit the people sending the URL around who will presumably look at the ad before forwarding. ... They say things like "If only one man controls the media, then we get only one side of the story", "Don't keep putting George Bush's interests in front of Australia's", and "Australia is still a democracy". From our focus group research, I'd expect these phrases to resonate with left of centre voters, not Coalition MPs. [1]
Thanks, Wiki Townsvillia n 07:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
References
This is rubbish. GetUp! is not a far left lobby group - I am part of GetUp! and I would never have described myself as such. In fact, I would not describe any of the members of my branch as "far left". We conduct meetings and individuals say whatever they like and express their opinions; there is no "party line" like there would be in a political party. So this is just wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.52.12 ( talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy, uninformed nonsense about the environment , climate change alarmism, anti Hanson claptrap and the usual platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies. Sounds pretty far left to anyone... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.194.140 ( talk) 03:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have read the comments above and have added "Non-partisan" to the first para to make it clear to uninformed readers that Getup is not a political party. I also agree that it is not "leftist", certainly not "far left", and disagree that "progressive" is not current usage in Australia. I am a very well-informed Australian. Melba1 ( talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I am a teacher, painfully aware that my students use Wikipedia as a reliable, unbiased source of information (!). They are also politically unaware and generally uninformed for the most part, and unable to infer things that most Wiki contributors would. So it is essential to make entries as clear and unambiguous as possible. Also DO NOT ASSUME that your readers' first language is English! Wikipedia is accessed by many millions of people whose first language is not English, and whose ability to interpret English sentences is therefore somewhat limited. Melba1 ( talk) 01:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The sections on the organisation's structure and goals are sourced only to the organisation's web site. We need external sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Good point, but I still think the article as a whole is not an advertisting. - Halloleo ( talk) 00:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
onesource|section}}
(or {{
onesource|lede}}
) for each section where it's accurate? That's really the only problem I see. If that's done, I have no objection to removal of {{
advert}}. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk)
05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC){{
onesource|...}}
is a good heading. :-)
Halloleo (
talk)
06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of contention regarding whether or not GetUp is an politically-neutral organisation.
However as a Green/Labor voter, I think it's naive to think that GetUp is politically-neutral. They are clearly left of the political centre.
If GetUp is politically-neutral, then Fox News in the US is politically-neutral too.
Sources:
2010 Federal Election scorecard clearly focuses on the strengths of the Greens in four policy areas: healthcare, pollution, "fair go" and jobs & infrastructure. https://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/gtelectiondayscorecarddemo.jpg
Focusing (Federal) Election 2010 attention on three left-wing social issues: Mental Health, Refugees, Climate Change http://election2010.getup.org.au/
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/getup-open-to-limits-on-donations-20100826-13uay.html "The left-leaning advocacy group GetUp!"
http://www.theage.com.au/national/melbourne-life/surfs-up-for-abbott-in-getup-bid-20100616-yggn.html "The left-wing group" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintslady ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
More links:
Election 2010 scorecard page that hosts the scorecard #1 http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/election2010&id=1344
Election 2010 scorecard page that hosts the scorecard #2 http://www.getup.org.au/community/gettogethers/series.php?id=30
Blog showing a copy of the scorecard http://kurtrudder.blogspot.com/2010/08/getup-election-day-scorecard.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintslady ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
This makes it fairly clear that they are very much so a partisan entity. -- Merbabu ( talk) 02:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Claims about Getup membership could be viewed as misleading, but the tone of that section of the page is clearly and obviously prejudicial in nature. The intention of "Brandonfarris" in posting that section, and seemingly other deliberately negative edits elsewhere throughout the page, is very clear.
And again, the nature of the sources referenced is the most dubious thing about that section. As Nick-D said when he banned "Brandonfarris", the person responsible for posting that section, and the "Labor party front" section, and the "Spam" section, use of dubious negative material from people like Andrew Bolt isn't appropriate.
All of this material is clearly and intentionally negative, and it is part of the overall and transparently obvious agenda pursued by "Brandonfarris" around Wikipedia, as stated by Nick-D a little while ago on this person's talk page.
Andrew Bolt, Quadrant Magazine, and the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, are not reliable or neutral sources. Which is part of the reason why we have a media inquiry taking place in Australia now.
Liberal MPs Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz and Andrew Robb are certainly not reliable or neutral sources either. Their rhetoric does not constitute any sort of legitimate evidence.
And the assertions made about donations are false, which can easily been seen by anyone who views the Getup page on their website, which provides ample details of their donations.
Therefore, most of the material in those three sections should not be there. Sam 3982 ( talk) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The fact that a Murdoch writer uses those words does not somehow automatically make it so, nor does flagging a boycott of the Australian Food and Grocery Council.
Furthermore, there are clearly many campaigns that Getup are engaged in which are not somehow "exclusively left-wing causes". I can easily go through the list if need be, but people should be doing this sort of research for themselves when discussing this issue, rather than making sweeping claims without any substance to support them.
Last time I checked, Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting in a balanced impartial manner, avoiding advocacy.
All evidence within this Getup page suggests that such standards are not being applied here! Sam 3982 ( talk) 09:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Left wing claim is verified by the conversation https://theconversation.com/new-style-lobbying-how-getup-channels-australians-voices-into-politics-60625 as so i have updated the article to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74tyhegf ( talk • contribs) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The tone of a certain unsigned and anonymous poster on this page, and use of offensive innuendos like "climate change alarmism", "anti Hanson claptrap", "pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy", and "platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies.", rather gives away the fact that it is this poster whose opinions are a long way to the right, not Getup somehow being "far" to the left.
Here are some facts:
A Lowy Institute poll this year showed 81% of Australians support action on global warming.
A Galaxy poll this year showed 62% of Australians support same-sex marriage.
And it's safe to say the vast majority of Australians are also opposed to Pauline Hanson. Her failure to even win a NSW Legislative Council at the last state election there, speaks volumes in this regard.
Sam 3982 ( talk) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Getup have provided a page on their website which discloses donations made to the organisation. Thus, I have included this information on the page here.
Their disclosure page is at http://www.getup.org.au/about/disclosure Sam 3982 ( talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This Wikipedia GetUp! article does not belong to GetUp! or to its supporters. Considering GetUp!'s high(est?) profile campaigns: Supporting David Hicks, Climate Action and Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?), based on any assessment, these are left-of-centre issues. GetUp! is a left-leaning Australian activist group. Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz, Andrew Robb and Andrew Bolt are notable persons. Stating the opinion of a notable person is always acceptable. GetUp! gives high prominance to 'JOIN THE MOVEMENT OF 588,913 AUSTRALIANS' with the implication all these people have signed up as GetUp! members. GetUp! does not explain this dubious connection.
Leave the GetUp! article as it is at 10:35, 13 December 2011. Jacksotherbrother ( talk) 23:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
"Gay Marriage (BTW, how's all that going?)"
Pretty well actually! Overwhelmingly approved in the plebiscite and now legal :) 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 06:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Could this be discussed, rather than battling to and fro in the article? There's nothing uncommon about over-estimating the numbers of supporters at a rally and I would be astonished if GetUp! didn't do this, but we can't say that they are giving inflated crowd estimates if we don't have a good source of some Getup! spokesgnome giving out numbers - and a report of a different and way smaller number from the police and/or media. If we don't have good sources, then the claims, accurate and credible though they may be, cannot remain here. -- Pete ( talk) 00:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
While these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I believe the way the information has been put together (regarding 5000 or 10,000 people at the gay marriage rally) violates WP:SYNTH. No reliable source in the article has commented on GetUp! overestimating crowd sources here, this is just one editor saying A and B therefore C. I'd rather discuss it here than edit-war so are there any counter-arguments to me removing the whole sentence? Freikorp ( talk) 14:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Accepting, these new references are certainly reliable for wikipedia, I have presented the rally numbers in NPOV format. Speedrailsm ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC).
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GetUp!. 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.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/25/Possibly_the_Most_Beautiful_Ad_for_Marriage_Equality_Weve_Seen/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://m.samesame.com.au/features/8052/Every-float-every-group-Mardi-Gras-Parade-2012-revealed.htm?page=3{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://aap.newscentre.com.au/acf/120209/library/forests_and_marine/27842334.htmlWhen 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) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Today there is a very interesting article in The Saturday Paper - labeled "exclusive" - which reveals that Malcolm Turnbull sought help from GetUp (though GetUp turned him down) to lobby Liberal party MPs to vote Turnbull into leadership over Abbott. The article has lots of other stuff of interest in it too, of even more relevance, which is not in the Wikipedia article. To be honest, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse and there seems to be more content in the "Talk" page then in the Wikipedia Article itself! I hesitate to enter the information myself, as the climate on the Talk page seems a bit toxic and I'm not interested in wading into an edit war. For those braver than myself, here is the article https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/10/28/exclusive-turnbull-sought-getup-help-before-spill/15091092005412?utm_source=tsp_website&utm_campaign=social_desktop_copy_link&utm_medium=social_share Powertothepeople ( talk) 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor with ip 60.241.207.253 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a significant bit of text regarding a website critical of GetUp! apparently run by the Liberal Party. I don't see any coverage of the website. My concern is first that this is undue weight and second the addition says the website claims all sorts of things, but the website mostly attributes those claims to anonymous sources. The editor has also removed text which reported the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission investigation. I am not Australian and have no understanding of the politics, but this looks like an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt on political opponents. Since the IP editor has reverted my change, I will take it here before changing anything again. Thoughts? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
GetUp is currently in a fight with the Australian Muslim population by trying to pressure the Australian government to stop live sheep trade. This of course is unacceptable to muslims who only eat halal foods. Plenty of citations are available, should be included, as this is a breakaway from GetUp’s original constituency that was quite broad in appeal 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:7834:C7B:7EB8:A501 ( talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Being opposed to the live sheep trade doesn't mean GetUp are "anti-Muslim"
It's entirely possible to slaughter livestock according to hahal requirements in Australia and ship frozen instead. 203.38.29.204 ( talk) 06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Very bewildered at how describing them as an activist organisation, in addition to the already existing description of a lobbying organisation, could be removed. While we're at, surely they're more of an activist organisation since they mainly target the public rather than politicians. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Replace 'left wing' with 'progressive', since this is what the given reference says: it does not say that Getup is left wing. To justify the use of 'left wing', a reference from a reliable, non-partisan source should be provided and it has no been. My source for this change is the one already given as reference 1: Vromen, Ariadne. "New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians' voices into politics". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 November 2016. Strayan ( talk) 01:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
A million members? Really? Do these supposed members pay annual dues or are recorded in a roll or vote in annual general meetings? Or are they just the total of anyone who has ever signed one of their online petitions over the span of 17 years? -- Pete ( talk) 10:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
The use of the exclamation mark after the name is inconsistent in the article and in the sources. I can't find a rule to follow for this - so hoping someone else can, or else just agree on one or the other. I know it's used in the logo and on their website, but it can look a bit odd if you want to use the possessive form. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 07:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)