Talk:Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey

Splitting current politicians into Federal/State?
Great work on this page and the main one.

Would it be worth while to split the politicians into Federal, NSW, Vic etc etc? Would the work be worth it?
 * I don't think it is necessary. The point is that they are elected officials at the time of the survey, and their federal/state/local representation is listed beside them. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is definitely worthwhile to split them. The Yes list is becoming huge and it's much more useful to split them up. Probably no need to do the same with No until/unless it also becomes very long. In fact at this rate it may be more useful to split the pollies entirely and present them differently - the list is still quite incomplete, and it might be better to present them in tabulated form by parliament (including those for whom no firm view can be found). This would make party affiliation and such like much clearer. Frickeg (talk) 10:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be split, as the larger it gets the more difficult it is to comprehend. Yes - Possibly presented in tabulated form.  B20097 (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the list has grown enough now to warrant it on the supporters side -- Whats new?(talk) 02:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Whats new?(talk) 03:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The Australian
Did The Australian actually advocate 'No' in its editorial linked in the main article, as opposed to a 'neutral' or 'wait and see' position? I've read it and it's a nuanced argument, but I don't think it actually explicitly says it endorses 'No' or that can be read into its argument (although it does come close). It concludes "...we await with interest to see whether support for this reform as expressed in the privacy of the postal survey matches the strong endorsement recorded by most opinion polls in recent years. Yet we cannot endorse such a proposal sight unseen. We cannot abide the possibility of replacing one form of discrimination with another. If the public, as expected, indicates an appetite for change, the onus will fall on the Prime Minister to ensure the task of allowing the contract of marriage to be extended to same-sex couples can occur without silencing or intimidating those who hold a contrary view about legal arrangements or what they view as a religious sacrament." Boneymau (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being a subscriber I haven't seen the full text, but based on the portion you've posted, it doesn't appear a categorical 'no' endoresement but "...we cannot endorse such a proposal sight unseen" and "...cannot adibe..." does seem to indicate a 'no' by default. I agree it is not clear cut and potentially open to some interpretation, but I would count it as a 'no.' -- Whats new?(talk) 04:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For me, "it is not clear cut" means we should not be listing it. This article is meant to list those who have clearly advocated for one side or another, not those who lean one way or another. Any individual or organisation for whom it is "potentially open to some interpretation" should not be listed here. Without having seen the full article, I would say if Boneymau's extract reflects the whole argument, we should not list it under the "no"s. Frickeg (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a good point - I would agree to remove on that rationale -- Whats new?(talk) 07:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wildly different to the concluding para in the rest of the editorial. Anyone should be able to read it in full if you open it stealthily enough (in Google News or in private browsing), I'm not a subscriber. And I'm pinging User:B20097 who added this to the No endorsements for their view on this issue. Boneymau (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I read, "Yet we cannot endorse such a proposal sight unseen" as a "No". Media-editorials may eventually clearly endorse "Yes" or "No".  Remove this "No" reference to 'The Australian' if you wish.  B20097 (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, done. (Although given we're now well into the survey period, if there isn't already a clear editorial position for a publication I doubt it will happen now. It's not like an election where they announce on election eve).Boneymau (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph
'The Daily Telegraph' is listed in the article as a "Yes" supporter. An analysis of what the DT said:

"The Daily Telegraph believes that on balance the Yes vote should carry the day despite the, at times, shockingly divisive ­approach of its less thoughtful campaigners. This is not to say the No case is without merit, or to in any way diminish the sincerity of those who will in good conscience vote against same-sex marriage. Individuals should, without fear or shame, vote in whichever way they feel comfortable, and in accordance with their personal values. If it is a straightforward question: should the rights of one group of Australians be enjoyed in equal measure by another group of Australians? The answer is Yes."

Consideration 1: "The Daily Telegraph believes that on balance the Yes vote should carry the day"  That seems to me to be the Daily Telegraph 's assessment of the outcome  - not a "Yes" endorsement.

Consideration 2:  "This is not to say the No case is without merit,  . . . ."   That seems to me just an extension of 1 above.

Consideration 3:   "Individuals should, without fear or shame, vote in whichever way they feel comfortable, and in accordance with their personal values." That seems to me to be THE The Daily Telegraph recommendation.

Consideration 4:  "If it is a straightforward question: should the rights of one group of Australians be enjoyed in equal measure by another group of Australians?  The answer is Yes". That seems to me to be saying, "IF [you believe] it is a straightforward question: should the rights of one group of Australians be enjoyed in equal measure by another group of Australians? The answer [for you] is Yes"

Consideration 5: The DT headline  "Same-sex marriage vote: Australians will get it right, yes or no". That is probably right.

Bit like 'The Australian' 2-bob-each-way, above. 'The Daily Telegraph' may, or may not, recommend "Yes". FYC  B20097 (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. This one I actually think is a lot clearer than the Australian example above. I think that this especially hinges on your Consideration 1 above, and specifically the word "should" - to me it seems fairly clear that it means "should" as in "you should do this", not as in "that should be OK, but let me check". It's the "on balance" that makes this fairly clear that this is the Tele's opinion, not an assessment of the outcome. And if we take that as true, the rest is easy - it's a qualified yes, and one that goes out of its way to say that it's OK if you disagree, but a yes nonetheless. But keen to hear other opinions on this. Frickeg (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frickeg's take. I don't think it's ambiguous at all, unless you somehow want to weirdly interpret 'should' and 'believes' to be other than normative terms. It is clearly saying: "we think people should vote Yes, but of course it's up to them". If it were purely a prediction of external events, I would have expected the Tele to use words like 'expects' instead of 'believes', and 'will' instead of 'should'. Boneymau (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * On Twitter, both The Tele's National Political Editor Sharri Markson and News Director Anna Caldwell  link to the article explicity stating it is the paper's endorsement of 'yes' -- Whats new?(talk) 23:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. It is a pity that newspapers now have to use Twitter to speak clearly.  B20097 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Macklemore and other minutiae
In removing wording from the main page, Shiftchange said, " Endorsements covered on seperate page"  Well actually it is not - 'Concerns within organisations about statements made by the organisations' is a completely different issue. Refer also to the TP. The wording was then added to the 'Endorsement page', a page which interestingly is supported by 232 Twitter citations (and that count was 7 days ago). The text, supported by 7 RSs (being a small sample of 100s of other RSs), gets removed by Frickeg as "minutiae". I believe this is a serious issue involving the unresolved tension between corporate and subordinates, regarding this survey. But now, it is completely removed from all Wiki pages. 'Macklemore' with 64 Australian RS citations (to date) in the last week, is more of the same survey "minutiae". B20097 (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not know what Macklemore has to do with this specific point, but anyway. This page is, essentially, a list. It is already very long. If we are to start adding more context/information here, it will need to be more uniformly applied, but I don't think we should. Not everything that is reported is significant, and the handful of people resigning from AMA, etc., are not significant IMO. If this were to be included, it goes without saying that balance would be needed (what about that article in the SMH the other day where the Sydney Symphony Orchestra was criticised for not having a stance? We would need something like that too). Frickeg (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If the organisation changes position as a result of differing views by its members, then that would be worth noting in some form. But it seems unremarkable that some members of organisations don't necessarily agree with decisions made by the leadership / majority of members - surely that's routine? The text in question here is also so biased it's unusable, and as Frickeg notes it doesn't align with the style of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "abc": From Jeremy Hanson:  From Jacqui Lambie:  From Nick Xenophon: MLC John Darley quits Nick Xenophon Team in South Australia: ABC 17 August 2017 From Beyondblue:  From Division of Macarthur: Macarthur - 2016 federal election guide: Antony Green ABC From Victorian Legislative Assembly:  From Kurt Fearnley:  From Richard Di Natale: </li> <li>From Catryna Bilyk: ABC News Online, Brain tumour survivor to lead rare cancers inquiry, retrieved December 2016</li> <li>From Nat Cook: 2014 Fisher by-election: Antony Green ABC</li> <li>From Katrine Hildyard: Assistant ministers elevated after Leesa Vlahos, Jack Snelling resignation from SA Cabinet: ABC 18 September 2017</li> <li>From Hugo Weaving: </li> <li>From Western Australia: </li> <li>From Antipodean Resistance: </li> <li>From Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras: </li> <li>From Democratic Labour Party (Australia): </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170812173341/http://lambienetwork.com.au/policy/conscience-votes/ to http://lambienetwork.com.au/policy/conscience-votes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)