Talk:Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Australia: Politics / Indigenous peoples Low‑importance

	Australia portal Endorsements in the 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Achieving a consensus regarding the article's structure[edit]

I recently checked out the endorsements in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey article (a page that this article is clearly modelled after) and to be honest, I was a bit overwhelmed by the level of detail. Every single politician who endorsed either side had been listed, both federal and state.

With this article, my personal philosophy has been to only add individuals whose stance has been individually notable, e.g. not listing any members of the federal Labor Party because the party has officially endorsed it, members aren't allowed a conscience vote, and none so far have come out against it. As such, they can all be covered by simply listing "All parliamentary members of the Labor Party unless otherwise noted" under the "Yes" category. This also removes the need to find reliable secondary (or even primary) sources for each, something that would be incredibly tedious.

However, I understand if others don't feel this way. After all, I don't actually know if "all parliamentary members of the Labor Party" have endorsed the Voice; it's an assumption that could be inaccurate. My system also means that prominent politicians such as the Prime Minister and Defence Minister aren't mentioned while some obscure state MPs are. Furthermore, creates issues of consistency between the state and federal legislatures; I'm overall comfortable making the claim that all federal Labor MPs endorse the Voice, but not necessarily about more obscure state MPs. This means that premiers are individually listed, in contrast to the absence of their federal counterparts.

I would very much appreciate additional input on this!! For consistencies sake, I really feel like consensus needs to be achieved concerning the proper structure of this page.

Thank you! Loytra (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Jewish Association[edit]

With regard to the edit by Seat456 on 12 Aug 2023 ... I do not doubt the authenticity of the claim here but citing Twitter is not very robust. Can you track down a stronger source for AJA's press release? It is not on their own website as far as I can see. Matthew C. Clarke 01:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback! I have found this article written by the president of the organisation, so would it be safer just to say just David Adler opposes it?

Article

Seat456 03:13 12 August 2023 (UTC) Seat456 (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's still not optimal, but I do think adding that as a second ref would be better. Matthew C. Clarke 00:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Twitter sitations?[edit]

I've removed all entries where their only verification is to Twitter, Facebook, etc. Per consensus established with WP:ENDORSE, specifically criterion 2:

2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

This means endorsements should not be sourced solely to a Tweet or Instagram post, for example. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.

Feel free to re-add individuals whilst citing independent reliable sources for verification. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

This article now has 10 citations from Twitter. As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Twitter does not count as a reliable source. Arguably, in contexts like this where we are documenting individuals' views, an authentic Twitter account of the person being cited or the account of the organisation being cited has some credibility. But can the people who added those Twitter citations please find better sources? Matthew C. Clarke 00:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: all individuals with their only verification being Twitter, Facebook, etc., per WP:ENDORSE which is pretty clear. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.