Talk:2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum/Archive 1

Bare urls and no edit summaries
, I have previously asked you to please provide edit summaries and not to use bare urls, and provided guidance on why not and how to create citations. Earlier tonight I posted about this on your talk page, and it appears that not only did you remove my comments, but you have continued to use bare urls and no edit summaries for your latest changes to this page. This kind of behaviour reduces the quality of the article as well as creating more work for other editors, so I ask once again for your cooperation in this matter, especially while this topic has such a high profile in the Australian news. I invite other editors to comment on this matter too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Per consensus. (non-admin closure) Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Australian constitutional referendum → 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum – To be consistent with the article naming of the other Australian referenda. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Plus, there could arise concern where one could mistake the "constitutional referendum" title as being to replace the constitution entirely, not simply alterations to it. Estar8806 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support New suggested name is a better descriptive title. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Support but prefer "2023 Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice referendum". The Voice is officially the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, and the general consensus from community is that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is preferred as we're talking explicitly about the representation of the experiences of two distinct First Nations groups. Yes, it's a bit of a longer title, but I think it is warranted. Tim (Talk) 03:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose The above is an example of why going it's not a good idea to go into overly descriptive titles, it never end. It's enough to say there was what (a constitutional referendum), where (Australia) and when (in 2023). That's why we have 2022 Australian federal election and not "2022 federal elction of 151 seats in the House of Representatives and 40 of the 76 seats in the Senate". If anything, the previous referendum pages should be the ones changed.--Aréat (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But all referendums are constitutional, however, not all referendums are on the indigenous voice. There is a line between silly and sensible, "2022 federal elction of 151 seats in the House of Representatives and 40 of the 76 seats in the Senate" is obviously silly but "2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum" is a sensible and appropriate middle ground. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * — includes quite a few that are not "constitutional" (in that they are not about changes to the Constitution). Mitch Ames (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Then that category name is wrong. See WP:WHATABOUTX. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S. I have since recategorised the four articles that were in category. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you still asserting that ? I still think not. The 2009 Western Australian daylight saving referendum for example, was not a "constitutional referendum"? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That wasn't Federal. I am referring to Commonwealth of Australia referendums. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not all federal referendums [in Australia] have been on constitutional matters", eg 1916 Australian conscription referendum. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was called a referendum even though it wasn't an actual referendum. For more info, see the last paragraph of 1916 Australian conscription referendum, the AEC website where it doesn't list the 1977 vote (here) and the PEO website that outlines the difference between the two instruments (here)  // GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Suppport The new title is better. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Position of the Coalition" section as a table
I was wondering whether we should have the section labelled as "Position of the Coalition" which describes the separate stances on the referendum taken by state level branches of both the Liberal and National Party could be better represented as a table? I wanted to get some other views before taking that step. Ornithoptera (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * (Belatedly) fine with me, thank you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Opinions of public figures
Per some discussion over at Talk:Indigenous Voice to Parliament, I don't see the point of trying to keep up with a host of "public figures" in this article. There will always be the usual suspects supporting one side or the other, and various sports stars and business people many of us will not have heard of, and is prone to getting a slanted view depending on who added what last. And there may even be some who change their minds. I would like to remove that section altogether, unless anyone can think of any particular person who wields such power that they are worth adding there. (And I don't think that Elon Musk will be opining, ha ha!) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this page should have a follow up page like Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. The page could be called Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum.La lopi (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a possibility. Probably just in list form. A lot of work for little gain, IMO, but if someone wants to do it, go ahead! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea, and in alignment with the precedent. I will do my best to help out if anyone is WP:BOLD and takes the first step! Ornithoptera (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please date citations
I haven't gone through the history to see which editor has created them, but there are a lot of citations with no publication date and some with no publisher. Please ensure that you include at least these basic bits of information. (And no bare URLs, please!) Thanks. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Which parties belong in the table?
There have been some reversions and inconsistencies about which parties' stances should be represented in the table. Personally I cannot see the point of including tiny, regional, and/or unrepresented parties in the table, but others my disagree. ,, and others may like to discuss. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * My logic is if a party is federal registered it shouldn’t be excluded for being a minor or regional party, many of these party’s have had representation in the parliament prior to 2019 and some have already giving there support/opposition to the voice eg. fusion, animal justice, Democrats etc. the party’s can have massive sway on movements they support by mobilising their members, I think it’s fairer and more beneficial for the reader to know the position of every registered political party, especially in the coming months more party’s will most likely reveal there positions if the page decides to only have parliamentary party’s that’s fine but it needs to be specified, you can’t say only federal party’s belong on a table and then exclude party’s that aren’t parliamentary. So in conclusion I think all party’s on the AEC’s list should be included to give the ready the best chance to know how supports what. Bonesy.200 (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Spell correct: So in conclusion I think all party’s on the AEC’s list should be included to give the reader the best chance to know who supports what. Apology’s my auto correct does not work very well Bonesy.200 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I too believe that the federal register of parties as maintained by the AEC as empowered by the commonwealth Electoral Act is a good, nonpartisan guide as to the inclusion of parties with political significance in the federal arena. I'm not married to this position by any means so if anyone has a different argument they should definitely put it here. J2m5 (talk) 05:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Should only state and federal registered parties be on the table?
Should parties like the communist's and socialist equality be included in the table, while they and other unregistered party's have political sway, they aren't registered meaning they can't actually have members elected under the party name which may confuse readers going off the State or Federal electoral commissions list, Also the list says party's at a federal level, But there are party's like Family First, freedom and DLP which have once had federal influence or have large influence in the state, so i purpose state level party's be included as well. Bonesy.200 (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we have already come to a consensus that only federally registered parties or parties with federal MPs should be in the table. I don't think we should include parties with only state-level influence given that this is a federal referendum. Also I would propose that we remove references to parties who have not stated a position and have federal registration, only including them when they have made a statement about their position/abstention, unless they have federally elected MPs. So I would propose to delete Australian Values, Citizens, Christians, Communist, Family First, Freedom, Great Australian, Legalise Cannabis, Informed Medical Options, Local Party, Shooters, Victorian Socialists, Voices, and WAP. J2m5 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I say we keep Christians since they have state their opposition Bonesy.200 (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you're correct, I'd forgotten they are registered J2m5 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And leave the unregistered/state partys and DLFCN to the endorsements page Bonesy.200 (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should only include federally registered parties. I don't agree that "or parties with federal MPs should be in the table"–I think that only impacts Dai Le, and I don't see the point in complicating matters by including her (still in the process of being formed) party in the table. I am being bold and removing all the parties lacking federal registration per the AEC register SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note I think it's totally ridiculous that we're considering Dai Le a parliamentary member of a party called "Dai Le & Frank Carbone Network" when this party hasn't even been registered yet, nor does her MP APH page claim that she is a member of this party. I speculate that she will still be an "independent" on the register even when the party is registered and when this occurs I will amend all necessary pages in light of this. J2m5 (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I am going to remove Dai Le and Frank Carbone Network (DLFCN) from the table for the simple reason that the AEC has not yet approved their application to be registered as a party. Processing of applications is currently suspended until 20 September (estimate) due to the 2023 Fadden by-election, and the legal requirement under s. 127 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act that the AEC must suspend processing party registration applications during any federal election (by-elections included, and which legally counts as the time between the writs being issued and the writs being returned). I don't have a problem with adding it back once their registration is formally approved (which it probably will be, although nothing in life is certain). SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Narrowing the potential date of the referendum
The infobox currently reads "Must occur between 19 August 2023 and 16 December 2023". However, the 19 August is now impossible as there needs to be 33 days between the issue of the writ by the Governor General and the election day.

Reference: Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. (1984). Section 2. 

"The day fixed for taking the votes of electors at a referendum shall be not less than 33 days and not more than 58 days after the issue of the writ."

This would make the current earliest date the 2 September 2023, given 33 days after 25 July is Sunday 27 August, and the referendum must be held on a Saturday.

I will make the requisite changes, and the date should be updated each Tuesday until a referendum date is announced. Maranello10 (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like WP:SYN. Why not just leave it as "between Oct and Dec" per the source, and change it when we have an actual date? There's no particular need to keep re-calculating and updating the possible date range every week. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It says "Must occur between", so the original dates were now wrong under that definition either way. If the "likely" dates are put there instead, it is a different discussion. The election page in each cycle has all the dates that are possible, including half-Senate dates that are very unlikely to occur. I personally prefer to keep this format, as politicans can change their minds on dates (Julia Gillard for example announced an election several months in advance, a date which never eventuated) and there is even a call from Labor Senator McCarthy today to do it earlier . I think it is best to cite only what is known for sure, and in my opinion, it isn't really a big hassle to update it. Maranello10 (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Create Article for Thomas Mayo (Indigenous Australian)??
Is he notable enough? Wakelamp d&#91;@-@&#93;b (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible cancellation?
Considering the bad looking polls for the Yes, is it a possibility that the referendum may be cancelled or delayed? I mean, is it legally possible, or does the law having been voted mean it has to be held? Aréat (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to speculate on such things. HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't speculate on it within the actual article at this stage, but for information purposes, once a constitution alteration bill has been passed, a referendum must be held within six months, providing an election is not held before the minimum time threshold has elapsed. Hypothetically, if the prime minister has not advised the governor general of a date and it is 33 days before the six month deadline, the governor general is compelled by the constitution to issue the writ, regardless of the prime minister's advice. It is not legally possible to simply cancel the referendum, however, parliament can pass another act annulling it before the issue of the writ, which is what is being referred to as "cancelling" by the media. This would be subject to Senate approval and not completely in the prime minister's control, however, for this referendum it is likely the opposition would side with the government in passing the amending act. Maranello10 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Same day as NZ election
diff ...

I really do not think that "same day as the 2023 New Zealand general election" is relevant to this article - and especially not in the lead section - in the absence of any indication that it matters.

Is there any indication that the coincidence of date will have any impact at all on the voter turnout, or the results (of the Voice referendum), or anything else about the Voice?

As always, other editors' opinions are also sought. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's irrelevant trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I also agree, it is immaterial. It should be removed. Maranello10 (talk) 02:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Same. At best it could be placed somewhere in the page, but certainly not in the lead. --Aréat (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . WWGB (talk) 02:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Independent discussion for the NZ article: Talk:2023 New Zealand general election. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be relevant given that tens of thousands of Kiwis will be voting in two things on the same day. Also, it could be noteworthy given that the article I sourced mentions that it could impact the debate around Māori issues in New Zealand. I should also point out that National will be contesting Māori seats for the first time. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * — In which case a reliable source will tell us it is important to the Australian referendum.
 * — Perhaps, but not in Australia.
 * — Not in Australia they won't be.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 12:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Very few New Zealanders in Australia will cast their New Zealand vote on 14 October. They can vote online from 27 September. The NZ polling places in Australia are closed on 14 October, so the last date for physical voting will be 13 October. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Maybe that is due to the referendum? QLDer in NSW (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" section sounds like left-wing smear
Why dont you talk about the nonsense being put out from the supporters of this referendum? Why that one-sided framing hurting the opponents? 62.226.80.220 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia content needs to be supported by reliable sources. Can you show us such material that supports what you want to see in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn`t the entire "reliable sources" approach some sort of ad hominem argument mixed with argumentum ad populum? Who decides what a reliable source is? Isn`t a reliable source always sort of this kind of site which tells you what you like to hear?
 * This fraction of the article remains heavily one-sided demonizing the opponents of this referendum by linking some of them to Neonazism which is another logical fallacy called "reluctio ad hitlerum". 62.226.71.155 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer "Who decides what a reliable source is?", you need to follow the link to reliable sources. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As the person who added it, I can confirm that it is not left-wing at all. In fact I consider myself to be centre-right (like the Coalition), a liberal conservative, not a leftie. The section is about conspiracies from both sides: the fringe No campaigners and the fringe Yes campaigners. It is also sourced. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that I'm a soft No voter. So clearly this IP is BSing. QLDer in NSW (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The conspiracy theory section includes no alleged fake news from fringe Yes campaigners. 2003:DA:C709:6200:9C13:93EB:DC20:1629 (talk) 01:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there are reliable sources to support the existence of "fake news from fringe Yes campaigners"? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason there aren't any is because fringe Yes campaigners are not concerned about impacts of the Voice. When you're against something, you have concerns, but if you support it through and through and push others to support it, then you don't. QLDer in NSW (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The comment above claimed that conspiracy theories from both sides have been added into the "conspiracy theory" section. This claim is false, the current version of this wikipedia article offers only conspiracy theories from the right and/or opponents of this referendum. 2003:DA:C709:6200:D585:38C0:9A07:C958 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this really a right vs left issue? I don't see that. Are there any conspiracy theories from Yes campaigners? HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What is a conspiracy theory anyway? How can you prove something that does not exist? Try to prove a negative is really hard and close to impossible. You might consider some positions unfounded but that does not mean that they are false.
 * Also, debunked establishment myths exist. "Vaccines will stop the spread of Covid", Saddam got WMDs in 2003, "I did not have a sexual relation with that woman, Mrs. Lewinsky", "refugees will quickly join the labor market". 2003:DA:C742:C700:F545:8A6F:2B4E:A7C0 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the comments above yours claimed that conspiracy theories from the Yes campaigners have been included in the wiki article which is false. 2003:DA:C742:C700:F545:8A6F:2B4E:A7C0 (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this conversation is over. Please stop commenting/trolling.
 * There are several ways to find out if something is a conspiracy theory, such as reliable sources, research, fact-checking, etc. For example the false link between vaccines and autism promoted by people like Andrew Wakefield (which I personally think is highly disrespectful to autistic people) has been disproven numerous times before and could potentially (and has) caused distrust by some in vaccines, therefore it is not only a lie, misinformation or disinformation, but a conspiracy theory because it is a highly damaging false claim promoted by several individuals. QLDer in NSW (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You made a false claim about conspiracy theories being included in this wiki article coming from people supporting the Yes campaign.
 * And my right to free speech remains superior to your wish to shut down the opinions of other people.
 * The "conspiracy theory" section remains one-sided, biased and left-wing smear. 2003:DA:C71E:6600:94E6:ECB3:7B7:9F89 (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to collapse this entire section as troll-bait, but WP:AGF one more time ...
 * You are (again?) invited to provide links to reliable sources that describe conspiracy theories from people supporting the Yes campaign. Verifiability is a core policy. Whether conspiracies/theories exist is irrelevant - they won't be included in the article without reliable sources. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've seen plenty of this trolling and stuff through pages relating to the Voice and the Voice referendum, which is why several pages (e.g Marcia Langton) are now protected. I'm putting this forward to ArbCom. QLDer in NSW (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not, again I'm centre-right not centre-left or left-wing, I base all my edits on factual info, and I'm not anti-free speech, I'm pro-free speech, but I'm also anti-troll. For the love of god this IP needs to shut up.
 * Mitch, can you collapse this thread? I'm sick of getting notifications from this crap. QLDer in NSW (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I said that the section was about conspiracy theories from both sides, not that it included conspiracy theories from both sides. If you find any Yes campaign conspiracies then add them if they are reliably sourced. QLDer in NSW (talk) 04:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You falsely claimed that "The section is about conspiracies from both sides: the fringe No campaigners and the fringe Yes campaigners."
 * This is simply a lie and you should know better. Where are the conspiracy theories from the "fringe Yes campaigners" mentioned in the article? And stop demanding from other people to "shut up". Ever heard of a thing called "free speech"? 2003:DA:C71E:6600:1977:157:9D4E:5061 (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I invite any uninvolved editor to close this entire section as troll-bait. I would do it myself, but I'm an "involved editor" and hat says I should not. Mitch Ames (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Ilenart626 (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The seperate Victorian Liberal Party table should be removed from the positions section
I don't see why the Victorian opposition party at a state level warrants its own table. I appreciate the party does not have an official stance on the voice, but since the conscience vote was announced only one MP has publically endorsed it. This can be neatly summerised in the general state party positions table, it doesn't require a breakdown of individual members to present this information and needlessly clutter the page. Maranello10 (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Maranello10 (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the whole positions section should be condensed down to a few paragraphs seeing we already have an article for endorsements. Thoughts? ––– GMH MELBOURNE   TALK  01:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * — Agreed.
 * Personally (as an Australian) it annoys me that the press give so much coverage to whether the political parties (and other groups, corporations, sporting bodies etc) support the Voice or not. It ought not matter whether the political parties etc support it or not because it is - the point of the referendum is that the people decide. Sadly, because the press give the politicians' opinions so much coverage, Wikipedia is obliged to cover it as well.
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Laterthanyouthink edits of Conspiracy theories section
I checked Laterthanyouthink’s edit, which the edit summary states “Conspiracy theories: fix citations, match content to source”. However their edit summary is misleading as they do not match the source, for example:
 * this references title has been changed from “ Trolls, China spreading Voice disinformation” to “Voice referendum: Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and anti-Semitic trolls spreading disinformation about the Voice on social media.” A quick checks shows the original title is correct.
 * the section “ The group making the claims about conspiracy theories "RMIT FactLab" was suspended by Meta as a fact checking organisation.” was changed to “ RMIT FactLab, which had been checking some of the claims made by the No campaign, including that the Uluru Statement comprised more than one page, was temporarily suspended by Meta as one of its fact-checking organisations in August 2023, owing to the fact that its certification from the International Fact-Checking Network had expired.” I can see no mention that this was “temporarily suspended" in the source, plus the certification appears to be a minor issue. The major reason appears to be “It also pointed to the upcoming referendum and "allegations against RMIT" in the wake of claims its fact-checking program was biased in favour of a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice to federal parliament.” In addition neither source mentions “which had been checking some of the claims made by the No campaign, including that the Uluru Statement comprised more than one page”.

Hence I believe @Laterthanyouthinkedits should be reverted. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That title was created by the citer tool - it must have been picked up from the source - but I didn't notice the change after using. I have now corrected it. I had also got rid of a WP:BAREURL by properly formatting that citation, and used the source to add the reason. Obviously there is more content one could add, but I'm not sure whether it's necessary or appropriate for this article, which is about the referendum. Also, please read WP:REVERT, specifically "Before reverting" before you get into unnecessary edit-warring, which could lead to getting you blocked. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh and I forgot to say, the source for the statement "The group making the claims about conspiracy theories..." is AFR, which says "A report by cybersecurity company Recorded Future found conspiracy theorists, political activists and far-right groups..." - RMIT Factlab is a source for some but not all of those items below, and not one of them mentions "conspiracy theories". Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, thanks for making the changes. In future would suggest that you take more care in ensuring your edits are supported by WP:RS, that way other editors will not have to remove unsupported assertions.  Ilenart626 (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In future, I suggest that you take more care in looking at the actual changes made, bearing in mind what it says in WP:REVERT, before you blindly revert. What I added (apart from improving citations) was clarification, and correctly matching content to cited sources. There was nothing to stop you just correcting the title that had been incorrectly extracted by an automated tool and gone unnoticed by me, or adding something else if you felt you needed it. I did not add anything that was not supported by reliable sources. (If you google or look up the meaning of "suspend" in a dictionary or  Wiktionary, you will see that it implies temporary. I added the Guardian source as an added extra, as it stated the word "temporary" explicitly, for those who may understand the implicit meaning of suspend.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Media influence
has once again reverted a change I made, that does not fulfil WP:REVERT. IMO media influence is a very important topic in the referendum, because it plays a big part in how hearts and souls are won. I believe that, while I'm sure that there's a lot more that could be added, this is an important topic, so I am going to undo the reversion. I would welcome other editors' opinions and as always happy to abide by the consensus on this matter. Reverting should not be used willy-nilly on good faith edits, a principle that is important for all of us to abide by. Talk pages are here for discussion about changes you disagree with, and not obvious vandalism or rule-breaking of other types. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this new section should nor be included in this article. It is supported by a single reference to a group called “Australians for a Murdoch Royal Commission.” which appear to be pushing an agenda against the Murdoch group of companies. I do not believe this is a reliable source.  Plus If we add this in as a new section should we also include details of accusation of ABC’s biasness as reported in the following:
 * Cameron told ABC Melbourne’s Virginia Trioli on Tuesday morning that 92 per cent of complaints noted a bias towards the Yes vote https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/what-abc-viewers-complained-about-20230815-p5dwk8.html
 * Enough with your inherent bias: ABC's 'Fact Check' page is failing its duty to provide Aussies with access to both sides of the Voice debate https://www.skynews.com.au/insights-and-analysis/enough-with-your-inherent-bias-abcs-fact-check-page-is-failing-its-duty-to-provide-aussies-with-access-to-both-sides-of-the-voice-debate/news-story/8e0deace5f418738a4e1c8e99ebb0e8a
 * EXCLUSIVE: Voice 'No' campaign and ABC are at war over top news program's upcoming 'biased hit job' - after the broadcaster was forced to rein in activist staff https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12261091/Voice-No-campaign-ABC-7-30-war-referendum-coverage-bias.html
 * Ilenart626 (talk) 10:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That post highlights the core problem with a section like this. Who gets to decide what is objective truth? A media outlet promoting a particular view will inevitably be unhappy with those promoting an opposing view. Being unhappy is NOT evidence that the "other" outlets are biased. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is how articles are built, piece by piece. You are welcome to add to it, so long as what you write is cited by reliable sources (which don't include the Daily Mail, btw). The Sky News piece above is an opinion piece written by a former Liberal MP, and includes a videoclip of Andrew Bolt. Hardly impartial sources. The SMH article is fine to cite, but note that it says "92 per cent of complaints [of the 102 submitted] noted a bias towards the Yes vote, but the Ombudsman’s Office did not find any instances where the complaints were upheld".
 * If the section grows large and you think it needs its own article, you can use the Split template to initiate a split discussion. What you don't do is just undo good faith edits containing bits you don't like. The cited source is a study commissioned by that body (as stated in the article, for full disclosure), carried out by professional researchers. A detailed explanation of their methodology is included in an appendix. And there is no escaping the fact that Murdoch media dominate the Australian media landscape. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are obviously misunderstanding my point above, I do not believe this section should be expanded, I believe it should be removed from the article. The issue is a minor with regard to the referendum and the opinion of some minor lobby group no one is heard of should not be promoted in this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you (, that is) have missed my point that it's not opinion, it's a data analysis by professional researchers, showing how media are reflecting the debate. How media affect politics or history is included in many articles. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of again reverting before there has been a complete discussion, this time anonymously, you could think about how to expand the section, for instance by adding a paragraph on the political importance of mass media, articles such as this one, and presenting what you think would provide more balance. There are a number of secondary sources that mention Dr Fielding's report, such as here, here, and here. There are ways to be edit more constructively than to keep accusing other editors of bias and removing their work. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I replied on my talk page, that anonymous edit has nothing to do with me. Before you accuse other editors of actions suggest you get your facts straight. Ilenart626 (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am sorry and have apologised on your talk page. The wording and action were very similar to yours. I will revert the IP's action until this discussion has properly ended. I would like to see at least one more editor involved, preferably more.
 * Here is one example of a section about media influence, on the same-sex marriage plebiscite. We could have a similar section in this article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The section in the article on the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey cited above shows, IMO, exactly how it shouldn't be done. Giving a blow-by-blow description is unencyclopedic. What's needed, in that article and here, is a tertiary source that summarizes the position, "there has been considerable activity in advertising and media from both sides of the debate." As this article here stands now, mentioning a single source from a clearly partisan party violates several key Wikipedia policies; rather than trying to balance it, it should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is now four editors saying it should be removed with one editor saying it should stay. Consensus is clearly saying it should be removed so I am deleting this section. Ilenart626 (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The removal was hasty. I don't know how you counted, but I count only 4 participants here. It would have been better to wait for further input. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the 4 against are you, me, HiLo48 and Anom that removed the section Ilenart626 (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input, Michael. I'm happy to rewrite and expand, using a couple more sources I supplied above, and more coverage, when I have more time. I only intended it as a start. I'm quite sure there are more sources out there. I agree that it's best to give an overview first, but a study which analysed data from the biggest source of news in Australia in a timely way is also relevant, IMO.
 * Btw I wasn't suggesting that the section in the marriage article was good, just that it existed, and I chose to use an Australian example. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ABC article “Voice not constitutionally risky”
@Mitch Ames your edit here I believe we need to state that it is their opinion, or something similar, that it is “not constitutionally risky”. Their are plenty of opinions stating that there are constitutional risks and concerns, for example, this article. Ilenart626 (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per my edit comment, it is not the letter-writers who are explicit opining, but I agree that there are other opinions, so it is not for us to treat that particular opinion as fact. I've updated the Wikipedia article to quote the letter verbatim, and let our readers make their own judgements. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In order to cover the topic more fully, I have just included a section on Legal opinions, which include a link to the article mentioned by Ilenart above and cover some of the main opinions published so far. There may be others worth mentioning and the section may need more shaping and/or expansion in the future, but it seemed to be an omission that needed coverage somewhere. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What you have now added,, is WP:Undue. Please reduce the number of words and direct quotes. If we were to expand that section with long quotes by all of those people mentioned, the article would run into thousands more words.
 * Summaries and brief paraphrasing are enough - readers can drill into the sources if they want to explore everyone's opinions in more detail. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about adding a Legal concerns section for awhile as I believe this is a major issue. I do not believe what I have added is undue, lets see what other editors think Ilenart626 (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Results display
Given that the success of referenda isn't based on electoral divisions, wouldn't it make more sense to just show the states instead of the electorates on the results picture? Even the Australian Electoral Commission isn't using them for results. 49.192.102.125 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Recent related discussion regarding referendum results and divisions. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

“Legal concerns” section
@Laterthanyouthink Your comment “Concerns belong logically before countering arguments” is incorrect as the “Countering the risk arguments” section is not addressing many of these issues. In particular, the issues highlighted by constitutional law professors Nicholas Aroney and Peter Gerangelos and the Federal vs state power questions have nor been addressed or resolved. Note in particular the comments by Aroney and Congdon on the Federal vs State power question that “Neither of the official Yes or No cases make any reference to this issue.” (which I noticed you have removed and I have now added back to the article). So how is this issue addressed in the “Countering the risks section”? Logically we should have the arguements for, then the arguements against and let the readers make up their mind. Your reordering and changing the header from “Belief that there is little or no risk” to “Countering the risk arguments” creates the false impression that these issues have been addressed. Ilenart626 (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Safes007’s edits here and on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament article  here have resolved the issue, in particular, renaming the “Countering the risk argument” to “Support for the current wording”. Ilenart626 (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks. I haven't had time to get to look at anything today. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of content
Hi. Sorry to revert your change, but that content has been mostly stable for some time now, with contributions and various tweaks by multiple editors, so I think that there's broad consensus that it is fitting to include repudiation of many common misconceptions about the Voice and the referendum. To make such a drastic change at the eleventh hour, when the article is receiving a high number of views, is unacceptable without extremely good reason, such as breaking a Wikipedia rule. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Section headings: "A majority of people", "A majority of states"
See discussion at Talk:Results of the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The cross
The infobox shows a cross meaning "no" but that symbol was not acceptable to the AEC. WWGB (talk) 10:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It's the wikipedia template. ––– GMH MELBOURNE  10:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, it's just funny to include a symbol which was actually an informal vote. WWGB (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Results in each electorate
Per my previous comment elsewhere I don't think we need the results per electorate. Per-electorate results are meaningful for elections, where they directly affect the parliamentary representative for that electorate, but for a referendum results are aggregated and are only effective at the state (for double majority) or national level. The referendum results may be published per electorate, and might be statistically interesting, but have no per-electorate effect. There might be case for it in Results of the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum (although see talk page there), but definitely not here. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There's well enough precedent for including division-level results such as the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey and the 1999 Australian republic referendum Matthew McMullin (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF - Precedent isn't necessarily a sufficient reason. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the page you link to discusses the deletion of articles, the specific article on "other stuff" being precedent of whether something should be included or not can be found in WP:SSE which backs that "other stuff" can be used as necessary precedent Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is true that the page is about article deletion, it does say (last paragraph of lead section): "... these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content... ". Note that both OTHERSTUFF and SSE are essays. However WP:NOTSTATS is a policy, so I suggest that if the consensus is that per-electorate/division numbers are worth keeping, they should be in a separate article (for the Voice referendum and also the marriage law and republic articles, and any other similar). Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree it's relevant, and I'd favour it here. If for no other reason than that I think the separate results page ought to be merged. Riposte97 (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * is it relevant? The individual electorate figures have no bearing at all on the results - only the state and national figures affect the outcome of anything. (Cf. elections where the electorate results do dictate who gets voted into office.) Mitch Ames (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it's relevant because it gives Wikipedia readers and voters a good visual aid to showcase the regional support of the voice, giving people the tools to see the whole country mapped out by these divisions instead of forcing people to individually research division names and where they are and what their wikipedia page is and where on said page the result would be. it streamlines a major process Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * — A fair point, but one that applies to the map in the infobox, not the table. (The table is not a "good visual aid" and does not say which electorates are regional vs metro, for example.) Does map get its data from that table, or elsewhere? Can we have the map but not the table?
 * In any case I suggest - per my comment in that WP:NOTSTATS say we should move that level of detail to a separate article. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm specifically talking about the map itself alone and favouring keeping the map, I am receiving my data on it from ABC news at this link: [] Matthew McMullin (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm specifically objecting to the table (example). The map is not an issue because the default is by state/territory only, so does not take up space unless you want to see the electorates/divisions as well. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need more, to reflect the debates over the results. The detailed results should be expanded—to include breakdowns, if possible with maps (as have appeared in the media), of the large differences between city and country and between areas with and without a substantial Indigenous population. Errantios (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Date in title
Is the year in the title necessary? Seeing as this is the only "Australian Indigenous Voice referendum", as far as I can tell anyway, it seems a bit superfluous (particularly with the precedent of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey) – ATeaAddict (talk) 11:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The year is superfluous in this case, but is consistent with all the other referendums in Category:Constitutional referendums in Australia. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the title altogether needs an overhaul. Why not call it the 'Voice to Parliament referendum' or something along those lines? Why is 'Australia' needed in the title? What other Indigenous Voice referendums have there been? Loytra (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the year should be kept to be WP:CONSISTENT with the format at WP:NCELECT and with other referendums. This article was previously at 2023 Australian referendum before being moved by Aréat in March 2023, being being renamed to its current title by ClydeFranklin in April 2023, as a result of this discussion. Happily888 (talk) 05:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposing to WP:TNT the misinformation/disinformation section
Honestly, I question how much of the information in there is actually needed or even of remote encyclopedic value. It definitely needs to be trimmed down and as it stands in its current structure, I can't see it being salvaged. The maintenance tag is there for a reason. DarmaniLink (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (Side note, usually i'd just go for it but given the arbcom nature of this as well as the previous arguments over this section, I would rather not have someone potentially take my actions the wrong way.) DarmaniLink (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To hell with it, someone can revert me if they care. I opened a discussion on it and got no replies. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your deletion is fine by me. I just removed a section already covered in the "Legal Concerns” section, believe the rest can be left and the maintenance tag removed. Ilenart626 (talk) 07:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * went ahead and removed the tag, if whoever added it still has a problem, they can readd it DarmaniLink (talk) 07:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of the list. I removed this last week but was reverted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)