Talk:Duncan Merrilees

The referendum that allowed many people to vote in elections for the first time
According to the article

Assuming that "the referendum" is the 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals), the article on the referendum says that and explains the details.

I'm not a subject matter expert, so I'm reluctant to change the text in Duncan Merrilees. Could someone more knowledgeable resolve the discrepancy? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What discrepancy? Is the statement incorrect? Are you able to convey what the sources are stating in a more factual way? Why are you quoting an an obnoxious coat-racking paragraph of legislative nit-pickery in article space, a triumphant bit of point scoring against politicians that is utterly unhinged from the social reality of a deeply racist past history. Show me an improvement. cygnis insignis 03:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What discrepancy? — Duncan Merrilees refers to a "referendum that allowed many people to vote in elections for the first time", presumably the 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals), which article says that the 1967 referendum did not give [Aboriginal] people the vote. (If Duncan Merrilees is referring to a different referendum, it should probably say so explicitly to avoid confusion.)
 * Is the statement incorrect? — It appears that the statement that "the referendum that allowed many people to vote in elections for the first time" is incorrect (if the article on the referendum is correct).
 * Are you able to convey what the sources are stating in a more factual way? — The relevant source does not mention a referendum or voting at all, so I'd be inclined to simply remove the mention of the referendum completely. However if we do mention it, the text should more accurately reflect what the referendum achieved.
 * Why are you quoting an an obnoxious coat-racking paragraph of legislative nit-pickery in article space, ... — I haven't added any quotes to article space. In my talk page post I'm quoting from article space so that editors can see exactly which parts of the articles contradict each other.
 * Show me an improvement — this
 * Mitch Ames (talk) 06:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You add an extensive note and tag on attribution in the midst of discussion. Clearly you look for some chink, like a quote, and proceed to lecture about the in main-space to an active and experienced editor. The quote is from Merrilees, the subject of the article and named in the sentence. I have reverted all your changes, with prejudice against obstructive editing behaviour. cygnis insignis 08:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You add an extensive note and tag on attribution — The request for a citation for a quote is independent of the referendum, and relevant in any case, per WP:INTEXT. (Note that I deliberately made that edit separately to other edits about the referendum.) If the quote is taken from The Bone Readers (the cite at the end of that paragraph), please put a cite immediately after the quote to indicate that. (Google-searching that book does not find that quote.) Mitch Ames (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your desire for debate and disinterest in improvements or fixing things yourself, so as to generate more debate, it is not why I'm here. cygnis insignis 08:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ...disinterest in improvements or fixing things yourself... — I pointed out a problem with the article, with a view to getting it fixed by someone knowledgeable in the subject (on the assumption that the editors who wrote the article probably knew more about it than I did). When someone replied with specific questions about what the problem was - presumably so that someone could address the problem - I answered those questions clearly, unambiguously, and politely. When asked to "Show me an improvement", I did exactly that by fixing the article myself - and then got reverted for being "obstructive". Help me out here - what exactly did you want me to do towards "improvements or fixing things"? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * ... proceed to lecture ... You asked specific questions. I answered the questions as best I could. Regarding references to "article space" and "in main-space", I'm not sure what your point is here. When you asked Why are you quoting an an obnoxious coat-racking paragraph of legislative nit-pickery in article space ... it was not clear to me whether "quoting [something] in article space" referred to my adding a quote to article space, or my quoting from article space, so I answered accordingly - so that my answer addressed either meaning. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reverted all your changes, with prejudice against obstructive editing behaviour. — Reverting valid edits that have nothing to do with the discussion - - does not appear to be improving the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should NOT be in the business of promoting bullshit left wing and activist myths such as "Aboriginals couldn't vote" and its even more obnoxious cousin "Aborigines were flora and fauna until 1967". Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It must be horrible to read such truths supported by facts, they arent myths that was the reality of life in Australia before 1967. Gnangarra 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * if you are asserting that the 1967 referendum did grant Aboriginal people the right to vote, could you please:
 * Provide references to support that statement.
 * Correct the sentence in that currently says (with my emphasis here): and the subsequent sentences that state when (not 1967) they gained the right to vote. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Modified to full citizenship, as stated in one of the few sources in the article. Anything else you can busy yourself and others with, Mitch? You happy to suck all the joy out of being here? Create some articles and show me how it is done. cygnis insignis 11:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You can take your bullshit reactionary talking points and aspersions elsewhere, or shove them up your arse, it has FA to do with content building. "Read books and adds what they say, must be a leftist activist". cygnis insignis 10:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


 * AEC explains that it wasnt until 1967 that all Indigenous people had the right to vote 49-67 only ex servicemen, or enrolled on state registers we allowed to vote. In WA, the it was anoffense until to encourage Indigenous people to enroll, NT only had 1300 people non their register, QLD was the last open up rolls in 1965 like WA it wasnt compulsory. of course you could have just gone to AEC and fixed this with the need to be disruptive. Gnangarra 11:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * on second thought it adds nothing to the section Gnangarra 12:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, the 1967 referendum altered the constitution, but voting rights are governed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act, which was changed by the Menzies government in 1962. SBS Television pointed out that the "flora and fauna" is one of the most long lasting myths about 1967. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * F&F comes from the NSW Wild life act that gave the NSW government control over Indigenous people, heritage, land, and culture. Others states had specific aboriginal/native acts. The right vote is more complex in WA the government could take away a persons right until 1971, it wasnt until 1983 that compulsory voting for Aboriginal people was enacte. This whole section started about voting, which wasnt in the source. Your comment added nothing to the discussion on the source. Gnangarra 12:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)