Talk:Australian Christian Lobby

Promotion? Use of sources?

This talkpage hasn't been edited since November, and then it wasn't really — a discussion from Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board was apparently merely copied here. So I guess discussion here isn't very lively, but I would very much like to have some comments on these latest additions, which seem quite promotional to me, or at least very one-sided. Are the sources reliable, and how are they used? I don't doubt that The Australian is a reliable source in general, but what kinds of articles in it are the footnotes referring to? I can't even read them; all I get when I click is a screen inviting me to subscribe to the paper. :-( I'm hoping some people here already do subscribe, but for me (not Australian) it's a bit of a stretch to do it just for these references. Pinging @B20097:, who made the edits, also @Shiftchange, Paul foord, Aoziwe, JarrahTree, Mitch Ames, ScottDavis, and Lankiveil:, who I see in the discussion above. Bishonen | talk 14:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

Go for it; it is some of the worst editing within WikiProject Australia. Remove whatever you think doesn't belong with no restraint at all. You have my support to fix this article boldly as you see fit. This problem needs addressing urgently. I have said it all before so I will not repeat myself. @The Drover's Wife: - Shiftchange (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Australian and Sky News should be treated like "red top" tabloids in the UK; they can be used but with caution. In this case at a glance the edits made seem very biased and designed to reinforce the persecution complex of fringe ultraconservative dominionist types, rather than an attempt to tell the story from an NPOV perspective. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC).

I have not reread the article, but my previous comments still stand. The views expressed in the article need to reflect the views of ACL. So the views will be biased. The bias just needs to be presented with a NPOV. We might not like some of the views but that is another matter altogether. Wikipedia is not censored. Aoziwe (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The article should not express any "views" from the organisation whatsoever. It should inform readers about the organisation in Wikipedia's voice. It is up to the organisation itself to express its views, not us. Just like it is not our role to express the Queen's views or the timetable of a train station. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

If the views are reported in independent reliable sources, then there should be no issue reporting what they are. If the views result in yet others responding and being reported, then that too can be included here and would actually justfy inclusion. But we don't need all the press releases from the organisation to be reported, as this article is not supposed to be a voice piece for their opinion. Normally "The Australian" would be a reliable source, not anything like a UK tabloid. It may have shrunk its size, and journalism staff but that does not make it useless. But naturally it should be checked for correctness and suitability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Historically The Oz was a reputable and respectable centre-right newspaper, but over the past few years they've been becoming increasingly vulnerable to yellow journalism. On the original topic, I have no objection to the article laying out the ACL's views on certain things, but it should not "reflect the views" of the ACL or anyone else. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC).

Solution?

Just try typing the referenced article title from the embedded URL directly into google, for example for reference 41, samesex-marriage-event-off-threats-to-hotel-staff, and then access. It went straight to the article for me - no subscription request, whereas when I accessed via the reference it did . . even though the direct URL is the same . . google search seems to bypass the paywall, at least once . so copy and paste the article content somewhere just in case the pay wall wakes up on a second attempt. Aoziwe (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Puzzling difference

In the light of the above, you might be able to explain this:

• Australian Marriage Equality Lobbying activities relating to LGBTIQ/SSM : 1,167 words

• Australian Christian Lobby Lobbying activities relating to LGBTIQ/SSM : 162 words

B20097 (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

The principle of other stuff exists applies. The concept is more generic than that link suggests. In essence, another article might need fixing and should not be used as a model for this article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Bowen quote

There have been a couple attempts to put in a quote from Bowen. The first one had the problem that it copied and pasted non-quote text from an article, the second still had the problem that it was taking a portion of the quote that misrepresented it (basically, Bowen said "people tell me X" and it quoted Bowen as saying "X".) But there's a basic problem that Bowen is not talking directly about the subject of this article. It was about "people of faith", and at best the ACL is some non-generic subset of those people. As such, there's a relevance problem. What is that quote telling us about the ACL? --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Intro problems

The introduction includes the phrase "voters of Judeo-Christian and traditional family values" which is unsourced and contains not one but two red flags regarding what we should be saying in Wikipedia voice.

• Judeo-Christian is a term widely rejected by Jews, as it tends to be used to mean "Christian" with the presumption that Christians get to speak for the Jews because Judaism was just the beta release of Christianity. Jewish values often differ greatly from Christian values, at least in the sort of political matters at hand. Its strong whiff of supersessionism marks it as a POV term to be avoided in Wikipedia voice.
• traditional family values is generally used as a spin term for a blanket set of patriarchal, anti-gay, and puritanical beliefs. There is not some generic tradition nor generic family that it can be assumed to be based on. As we avoid spin terms like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in Wikipedia voice, so should we shun this one.

Neither of these terms appear later in the article, so it cannot be claimed that this is a mere summary of what is said below, as an intro seeks to be. If we do need a blanket term to reflect what the group sets forth and the voters it seek, a less laden phrase might be "socially conservative voters".

I am avoiding direct article editing at this time; I ask that other editors review this concern and, if they feel it appropriate, make that change. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In addition to those objections, I should note that the same sentence contains the phrase It is similar to the other international Christian lobby groups, which is a problem in that ACL is not an international Christian lobby group. I guess that what was intended was "similar to Christian lobby groups in other nations", which might make a good replacement if it needs to be kept... but given that there is nothing in the article about this supposed similarity, it shouldn't be in the summary at the top. Again, I ask the editors review my suggestions and apply them as appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

unreliable source

The article currently claims In 2023, the Board terminated the contract of CEO Martin Iles following a review of strategic direction. However, the source is quoting a tweet from Iles regarding the reason for the firing. People are not reliable sources for the reasons for their own firings; they will have an incentive to put forth a reason that makes them look good. I suggest removing following a review of strategic direction. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)