Talk:Australian Christian Lobby/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Concern about alleged complete bias, factual correctness, violation of NPOV, bold edits and consensus-building

Grotekennis has objected to the updating of this Wikipedia page and has crudely reverted all updates claiming WP:BRD stating a consensus is needed. Following from the on-going Talk on this page, each update to Revision 515451522, 11:50, 1 October 2012,‎ was documented and explained. Please detail where any particular update leading to Revision 515451522 is either "completely biased" or is a "gross violation of WP:NPOV or is "factually incorrect" and if you have to, get a consensus. In this consensus-building, make sure the motive is to maintain the integrity and quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, rather than something else. (As an aside, why do you make different rules, considering the more extensive and unchallenged WP:BRD previously undertaken by Freikorp during August and September period? I hope you don't change the editing rules depending on what is written about ACL.) Sam56mas (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No Sam, I noticed all your major changes because of the simple fact that they were so large. Now, to begin with, let me say that a lot of your changes I either actually agree with you or don't oppose the changes, but several edits contained the injection of NPOV violating material or some material that is completely factually incorrect. Take for example the one you inserted about homosexual "lifestyles" - the usage of the word itself is completely unprofessional as if any additional descriptor is needed there then the one which should be used, if at all, is sexual orientation - you inserted that the ACL's assertions are supported - but in fact the ACL's assertions are completely contradictory to scientific research (that there is no difference in the health between people of different sexual orientations - however LGBT people do sometimes face depression, etc because of discrimination and prejudice - see also Wikipedia's article on homosexuality). So that injection was a completely factually incorrect & in violation of Wikipedia:NPOV. There are several other edits which you made which are problematic and these should be discussed and then implemented instead of being pushed through. Thanks, --Grotekennis (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we are getting there. The word "lifestyle" was a direct quote in both cases used - from the two (notable) sources. It is defensible as 'common usage' with 374,000 "homosexual lifestyle" results returned by Google. (refer note for Freikorp below) So as not to offend sensibilities, I am prepared to remove the word "lifestyle". Would you prefer "sexual orientation"? The health quote is an ACL-supporting citation, written by an Australian doctor, which says that a, "17-year loss in life expectancy among young HIV positive men was reported in 2008 in The Lancet medical journal, despite the best anti-viral treatment. In Australia HIV/AIDS remains overwhelmingly a homosexual disease: the Kirby Institute found more than 80 per cent of new cases are in “men who have sex with men”. All easily verified. Is this not a concerning health issue? However, I can modify this. You say, "There are several other edits which you made which are problematic" OK, please detail them so we can then resolve this impasse. Freikorp - The Google search facility is not really that complex. Sam56mas (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

....I know very well it is not that complex, that was the point of my previous comment. The simplicity of google search facility hasn't stopped the author of that online opinion article from making an idiot of himself. The author of the online opinion article didn't do the simple kind of search you just did (searching two words, that are expected to follow each other in syntax, together in inverted commas), he has searched for multiple terms and assumes the hit count implies all the search results associate the two terms together. Of course some of them do, but most of them probably don't. Consider the following study I completed in under 30 seconds. Yes, googling 'Wendy Francis C*nt' gets me about 4 million hits, and googling 'Wendy Francis f*uck' get me about 1.5 million hits. However as a control I googled 'Wendy francis potato' and that got me 58 million hits. That doesn't mean 58 million people have called Wendy Francis a potato, but the author of that online opinion article probably would think it does. But my opinion is beside the point in this case, as I was just pointing out with my previous post what RSN said, if you think that article is objective and the author is notable and competent in using google you are going to have to take it up with the 3 neutral editors who clearly disagree with you. Furthermore I don't see why you brought it up here, but I always reply to people comments directed at me so accordingly my reply is in the middle of a different conversation. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikorp I agree with you that the writer of that Online Opinion article, "is not notable". However, with great respect, that is irrelevant, as the facts presented by him, remain the facts. In relation to that Google search matter, (upon which you place great weight) the OLO author suggested a Google search using the terms, "female ACL staff members, and the F word" Clearly (for the C word which you use as an example) that is, "Wendy Francis" AND C*nt 3,190 results with 'Pages from Australia' 1,370 results (and as far as I can see most of those are completely insulting towards ACL's Wendy Francis). Freikorp, you have obviously badly misinterpreted what was written as, 'Wendy Francis C*nt' 4,400,000 results. That is vastly different. Using 'Wendy Francis' rather than "Wendy Francis" is a very serious Google error. Your detailed search explanations further confirm that it is the OLO author who has the deeper understanding of Google search functions. In light of this, I suggest that you owe the OLO author an apology for calling him an "idiot" who "does not understand Google". Now, how about giving some thought the current TALK questions, above and below, regarding the ACL Wikipedia entry. Sam56mas (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you were the one who felt the need to bring the google issue into this section, my above comment was simply defending myself from your condescending remarks. Secondly the author does not specify in his article that he searched for the ACL members names in italics and the curse word separately (yes that would explain the 'thousands' of results as opposed to millions however I thought it was obvious I was simply giving you a basic example of his flaw, I didn't think I would have to go to the trouble of testing out multiple ways of searching to explain that two terms matching do not necessarily mean they words are used in relation to each other). Thirdly searching for the ACL members name with italics and a random innocuous word can still gets more hits than curse words; the point I was making remains valid searching for the terms in either way. I don't think I owe anyone an apology, especially someone who writes an entire article about this wikipedia article being biased and neglects to mention that the only editor who was actually caught vandalising it AND the only editor who has previously refused to partake in conversation about their own controversial edits was you, a pro-ACL editor. You'd think an objective review of this articles history would have at least mentioned that. Fourthly it doesn't matter who wins this argument, since we are not discussing anything being added or removed from the wikipedia article, so accordingly I am not going to waste wikipedia's space by replying to further comments about that OLO article. In the future if a conversation is not aimed at my actions I suggest you don't wikilink to my username and find a find an excuse to attack me over something I have said in another section (mentioning me on your first post here was fine, as you were simply mentioning my actions in a neutral manner). I didn't join in on the conversation initially because I still wanted to hear both your arguments on the matter, once you had both replied to each other, and that still hasn't happened. Freikorp (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, your argument regarding who knows most about Boolean searching is not very convincing. I will not continue that discussion. The issue to be resolved is the current TALK questions, above and below, regarding the ACL Wikipedia entry. I do not understand what you mean by, "I still wanted to hear both your arguments on the matter, once you had both replied to each other, and that still hasn't happened". Are you referring to my previous statement," After the clean-up, I will then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion" ? Of course, I will honour that commitment. Currently I am standing-by for Grotekennis / other, response to my clean-up proposal and / or to respond to my unanswered questions raised on 20:52, 1 October 2012 and 22:27, 1 October 2012. Sam56mas (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I still wanted to hear both your arguments..." You said "how about giving some thought the current TALK questions", which I gathered was you saying I should stop talking about the OLO article and start talking about the main topic of this section. I was just saying the reason I hadn't joined in on the main topic of your first post in this section was because you had asked Grotekennis a reasonable question and since his arguments are logical I was interested to hear his reply. He is the one that found issues with your edits, and I wanted him to elaborate on them before I was going to join in, If I joined in at all. So I guess I am I am standing-by for Grotekennis as well. Freikorp (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly have I missed something? Even if Wallace was wrong using the "unprofessional", lifestyle word and in his reference to health issues - it is incontestable that is what he actually said. The ACL site has an extensive Controversy and criticism section. Within this section Wallace is criticised from the Prime Minister down with his above comments being labelled as "heartless", "wrong" and "totally unacceptable". Are you requiring that Wallace's actual "unprofessional" words are to be censored within Wikipedia? If so, you might be sanitising away that which is being criticised.  ?? Sam56mas (talk) 22:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam, why haven't you responded to the second part of my reply - you responded only to the first part, but not to the second part about what scientific organizations say about the issue in question. I'd appreciate a proper response to the second part. --Grotekennis (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Grotekennis - You asked, "what (do) scientific organizations say about the issue in question" For a start the head of the human genome project, Dr Francis Collins has said, "No one has yet identified an actual gene that contributes to the hereditary component (the reports about a gene on the X chromosome from the 1990s have not held up), but it is likely that such genes will be found in the next few years".[85] It seems there is not a consensus amongst scientific organisations on the cause of homosexuality. The matter is currently scientifically unresolved. However - If you check, you will find I had removed the entire paragraph - starting from, "In January 2012 the Herald Sun published an opinion piece by Margaret Court" right through to the 'Francis Collins' words above. Grotekennis - you have put all those words back. It seems to me, had Jim Wallace said, "I believe in God" that "unscientific expression" would cause less Grotekennis-anguish than the mention of the word "lifestyle".

Wikipedia ACL editing does seem very selective (precious?). Within Wikipedia ACL Jim Wallace's actual words get outrageously distorted / embellished by Wikipedia editors - refer Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct. No-one challenges this for any reason, including WP:NPOV Yet, selectively / conversely, entire paragraphs are instantly deleted and detailed explanations and justifications are demanded. A consensus opinion is demanded. It is not unreasonable to suggest all this is WWP

I have offered above - 20:52, 1 October 2012 , "So as not to offend sensibilities, I am prepared to remove the word "lifestyle". Would you prefer "sexual orientation" (being the alternative you have suggested)?

Grotekennis - 11:53, 1 October 2012‎ you said - "You made the Bold change, you were reverted" All my edits are documented - I could, but prefer not to waste everyone's time getting into a debate regarding any WP:BRD issue - which, "is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline" rather "making bold edits is encouraged".

I have said above - 20:52, 1 October 2012 - Grotekennis has said that there are several other edits which you (Sam56mas) made which are problematic. OK, please detail them so we can then resolve this impasse.

Grotekennis - You have said - 13:07, 1 October 2012, "let me say that a lot of your changes I either actually agree with you or don't oppose the changes" Can we agree to put up those changes ? - for instance the Grotekennis-deleted-reference to the recent voting in three house of parliament seems to be a worth-while addition. Sam56mas (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam, you're still dodging the point. The point is that many things the ACL has said, especially when it comes to LGBTI rights, are completely falsehoods. This should be noted in the article. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Grotekennis - Your sentence (aka demand) would appear to a reasonable person as just more of your ongoing obfuscation -- [REPLY EMBEDDED]

- Sam, you're still dodging the point [NOT SO - please read my detailed explanations above]. The point is that many, [PLEASE BE FAIR - I have asked you a number of times to detail your concerns - rather you use the fuzzy word "many"] things the ACL has said [ARE you now expanding your demand beyond your crude deletion currently under discussion?] especially [IMPLYING there is more to come?] when it comes to LGBTI rights, are completely falsehoods [STRONG words - please explain these allegations]. This should be noted in the article. [PLEASE explain what you mean and illustrate how you expect it to be done] Grotekennis - Would you please respond to my offers above made in a genuine endeavour to resolve this impasse. Sam56mas (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm growing tired of waiting for you two to sort this out (not pointing blame at anyone) so out I'll add my two cents while we're waiting. I've gone through and looked at the changes Sam was making and these are the ones I have an issue with.

Removing the statement "The ACL has been involved in several controversies, most prominently in relation to its opposition to various LGBT rights" from the opening paragraph. WP:LEAD specifically states the opening paragraph should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." A one sentence summary of the entire criticism section is acceptable, and I am absolutely certain any neutral third party would agree with me.

The statement: "In regards to homosexual-lifestyles, ACL is supported in its concerns regarding health-issues." Supported BY WHO? Every conceivable opinion in history has been supported by someone somewhere. Please be specific.

If you are going to include this paragraph starting with "On 19 September 2012 Australia’s lower house of Federal Parliament voted against..." I think the number of votes for and against should be mentioned. It is very relevant that the vote in Tasmania would have been a tie if one more vote has of sided in favour of it. And considering that Jim Wallace is allowed to have a comment underneath the facts it should be mentioned that several of those voting against the bill were not opposed to gay marriage and opposed the vote on the grounds that it would initiate a high court challenge and that it should be a federal vote.

Otherwise I'm actually quite pleased with the changes. Freikorp (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikorp - Thank you. Those are very sensible comments. I am very willing to make the changes, taking into account "the ones (Freikorp) has an issue with". But before I do, I would appreciate, Grotekennis, as it was you who set up this process, if you let us know that you are in agreement. (Grotekennis - a possible take-home message. As you might know - Freikorp and I do not always agree but he does respond in a timely manner, with detailed and focussed comments.) Sam56mas (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regarding the gay marriage vote comments, the more I think about it the more i think the comments and references shouldn't be used at all. Firstly in order to make the wording objective we will need at least two more sentences, which I think gives the issue more weight than it deserves in the article. And secondly nobody is going to be surprised that the ACL have something positive to say about the fact the issue was voted down, so I don't think any readers will gain anything useful from its inclusion. But I'm sure we'll discuss that later.

Also I should mention something about your edits removing the info regarding the theology student's open letter to Jim Wallace. I am not opposed to this for now because under my proposal in the overhaul suggestion section this comment would be removed anyway, as it comes from a biased source. So whether or not that removal gets contested eventually will depend on your reply to that section. And just so we understand each other on the issue I do not think the theology student himself is notable (in the same manner that the OLO author is not notable). The reason that reference made my threshold for inclusion initially is because the website that reported it is notable; the theology students letter itself does not meet my standards for inclusion. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Grotekennis - We are still waiting for you to respond. You will observe what disruption your wholesale-deletion has caused. While you might not accept it, I see what you have done as yet another example of Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct - / - WWP. BTW I am patient, but not easily put-off'. With great respect you would make a better Wiki editor if you were faster with your useful comments and slower with your delete button.

While waiting for your response, I have set out below what I will then progressively do to untangle this generated mess.

1 Revert to revision 515451522 being the last update-version prior to the Grotekennis-wholesale-deletion. (note all the previous update modifications have been detailed on the Article, View_History page)

2 Reinstate the various updates made between 4 Oct and 6 Oct. Not sure what the 05:56, 6 October 2012‎ John Nevard correction is all about. I will let others fix - presumably to create a consistent definition > LGBTII  ? LGBT  ? LGBTI  ? LGBTIQ  ?

3 Incorporate the first set of the Freikorp suggestions 08:06, 6 October 2012

4 Incorporate the second set of Freikorp suggestions 13:56, 6 October 2012 (but not entirely sure what you are saying re the marriage vote and comments - but will take out the Jim Wallace comment). In relation to that which I have removed - I will reinstate the theology-student-issue - but for balance I will also reinstate the Margaret-Court-issue - we can discuss

5 In regards to the third set of Freikorp suggestions 14:21, 6 October 2012 - I will retain the Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson - Tas paragraph. However, I have no objection to the whole thing being removed, as you have suggested. However I note (1) the that comments of Brian Greig do seem insensitive considering the seriousness of the matter. (2) It is obviously not a good look, he being "notable", "former Senator" Greig / Grieg (sic) Refer - Freikorp (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2012 (3) Refer - Freikorp 14:21, 6 October 2012. Can I ask, what is your agenda ? (to which you refer). I thought Wikipedia editors had only one agenda - namely building an NPOV encyclopedia ??

6 Continue the editing clean up and then respond to the questions raised in the above Overhaul suggestion.

Sam56mas (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I support Freikorp's suggestions. Firstly, the mention of controversy over LGBTI rights should stay in the opening paragraph. Secondly, the part about Wallace's mention of "the homosexual lifestyle" should either be removed (or be in quotes, along with a mention that the scientific community has condemned similar such comments because it is not correct to say that any sexual orientation inherently carries any health risks, obviously). Lastly, as to the mentions of marriage legislation, all 4 votes (Both houses of both the Australian Commonwealth and Tasmanian State Parliaments) should be mentioned, along with relevant information (such as the fact that the Coalition was whipped into voting against the proposed marriage equality bill in the Commonwealth parliament, and the fact that some in the Tasmanian upper house voted against the bill because they taught it is a federal matter). --Grotekennis (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Grotekennis - thank you. Constructive proposals rather than sledge-hammers are always preferable. I will progressively work through steps 1 - 6 above. Sam56mas (talk) 09:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

That's it - have completed Steps 1 - 6 above. Responses are provided above to the questions raised in Overhaul suggestion. Sam56mas (talk) 06:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your comments; OK, I'll bite. Seriously, did you really have to point out I spelt somebody's name wrong on a talk page? With the time and date no less! Does that not strike you as a little petty? This isn't even the first time you've felt the need to go out of your way to point out I've made a typo. I've corrected typographical errors you have made on the actual articles page without feeling the need to specifically bring it up to you, because I don't think an occasional typo is something to be ashamed about. Every time I think we are finally going to be able to have a civil conversation you have to take a cheap shot.

What agenda am I referring to? Honestly, who do you think you are fooling? You clearly go out of your way to add pro arguments for the ACL, and I do the opposite. That is fine. When was the last time you found and added some referenced, notable criticism to the article? (I don't expect you too, just saying) You may attempt to add your pro arguments in a NPOV manner, but if your only goal was building a NPOV encyclopaedia you would be adding the criticism yourself. Were you not blocked from editing for completely removing people saying things you didn't like about the ACL? Your talk page specifically says "You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring, continually removing content in order to suppress recording of criticism. You have been warned about his, and have shown no willingness to discuss the issue." Does that not imply you have an agenda? In true ACL style you have never acknowledged or apologised for doing that. No "Hey sorry I vandalised this page, but I'm not going to do that again and I'll start replying to you now and will work together". No just keep ignoring your mistake and changing the subject when I bring it up. Scroll up and see all the sections on this talk page where you haven't replied to comments/questions. It's the attitude I've come to expect from the ACL and their supporters.

Incidentally I'll tell you why I took an interest in editing this article, I'd been editing wikipedia for years before I'd even heard of the ACL. The first time I heard of them it was from reading an article in a mainstream newspaper about how they deliberately deceived Adshel into thinking complaints about the safe sex ads were coming from members of the public and were not affiliated with any organisation. I thought that was a particularly dishonest thing to do, so I added the information to this article, and upon googling for more informartion I found the controversy Jim Wallace generated after his Anzac day comments, so I added that information to the article too. If the ACL hadn't decided to resort to dishonest tactics, and Jim Wallace hadn't made the kind of offensive statements he made on Anzac Day, you wouldn't have ever had to deal with me editing this article. If you'd all stop taking cheap shots and being dishonest maybe people wouldn't dislike you so much. I don't have a major problem with a group organising a petition against anything (such as your anti gay marriage petition), I have a major problem with deliberately misleading people (such as the Adshel controversy).

Back to talking just about the changes: I've removed the entire paragraph re 'Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson' as per no objection.

The only problem I have with your changes. The reason I was protesting the paragraph "On 19 September 2012, Australia’s House of Representatives voted..." was for the exact same reason I proposed removing the 'Jim Wallace and Michael Ferguson' paragraph. It had too much over-detailed explanation just to provide the context for the relevant comments. And the over-deatiled explanation was only half the story, providing the full context was going to make it way too over-detailed. I appreciate that you took my suggestions into consideration re the vote count, but unfortunately the entire paragraph doesn't belong here anymore. It doesn't mention ACL involvement, it just mentions the vote itself. It provides no context as to how this vote was affected by or affects the ACL, and if it did I would have to propose its removal on grounds of being over-detailed news style writing. The information belongs in greater detail at Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia (where it already is). Freikorp (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikorp - Thank you for your detailed comments. I have carefully read through them. I am not sure want you are asking in the last few sentences commencing, "I appreciate . . . ". I would have thought it is not unreasonable to mention (as requested) the parliamentary votes - as the SSM issue lead-up to this critical parliamentary vote(s) has been extensively chronicled on these pages. All the 'voting numbers' citations were particularly selected to mention ACL. If you prefer, I can directly use the ACL comments / reference re the elections from the citations. Are you suggesting that the SSM Galaxy poll results remain, while SSM Parliamentary considerations are removed? Would you prefer that I revert Jim Wallace's direct commentary ("time to move on") paragraph - now removed? It seems relegating (burying?) this important information to Recognition of same-sex unions in Australia is not a good solution either, with one reason being that page reads too pro-SSM with listings only of those who support SSM. In relation to the Grotekennis revisions, firstly thank you for making these edits in a methodical way. I note that you provide almost no explanation on what you have done - refer how Freikorp does it. I would appreciate Freikorp if would you would provide your consideration on each of the latest edits. I have listed them below and numbered them for ease of commenting on them. Of course, Grotekennis/others are welcome to comment also.

The recent edits

15 13:46, 8 October 2012‎ Freikorp (-2,332)‎ (‎Same-sex marriage: removing over-detailed news style reporting as per talk page)

14 13:32, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+24)

13 13:31, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-40)

12 13:29, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+88) (Nazi inferences:)

11 13:28, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+435) (Same-sex marriage:)

10 13:18, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+488) (Issues relating to family: NPOV)

9 13:16, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (-582) ( :Rm redundant references - everything they backed up are also backed up by neutral sources)

8 13:13, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+60) (Issues relating to family:)

7 13:13, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+72) (Issues relating to family:)

6 13:11, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (-145) (Same-sex marriage: rewording for better reading flow)

5 13:10, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+60) (Issues relating to family:)

4 13:09, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (+188) (Issues relating to family:)

3 13:06, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-1,038) (Issues relating to family: NPOV, proper sources which directly relate)

2 12:58, 8 October 2012 Grotekennis (-460)

1 12:55, 8 October 2012 Freikorp (+60) (Replacing dead link with valid one)

To get the ball-rolling I have provided, for each those edits, some material to consider.

15 Freikorp No problems

14 Grotekennis No problems

13 Grotekennis Editing convention explains the abbreviations prior to first-use

12 Grotekennis Nazi inferences para now further embellished refer WWP and Wikipedia establishes that Jim Wallace is correct. Still waiting for someone to fix the massive distortion here.

11 Grotekennis No problem with having cited ACL criticism, controversies and 'balancing' issues here..

10 Grotekennis Number of dubious edits - Various opinions and POVs not supported by citations. "Whipped to vote . " "with some of the councillers . ." against the passage of marriage equality the > their = "spin". Nice try - Andrews did not say that. Citation actually says Andrews says, "THE gay marriage debate . . ." uncited 'slippery-slope' matter already covered further down the page - currently citation 94.

9 Freikorp Refer to - 6 below

8 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.

7 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.

6 Freikorp Hardly seems presenting a NPOV by removing the two citations to ACL petitions, while retaining two citations to GetUp! petitions. Petitions related to the Paraliamentary voting you now seem to want to remove ?

5 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.

4 Grotekennis More additions to same paragraph - 3. Refer below for discussion on this Grotekennis paragraph.

3 Grotekennis use of 'restricted to' - a loaded word not backed up by citation. The deletion leaves Wallace-statement uncited. Refer below for discussion on the Grotekennis edits on this paragraph.

2 Grotekennis A reasonable non-controversial paragraph has been removed with no explanation

1 Freikorp Fine no problems

Discussion on the Grotekennis edit in 3 - 8 above

Freikorp prior to your contribution here on this Grotekennis edit you might review your edit made 06:04, 16 June 2012 and your comments on this Talk page Post RfC changes 07:54, 16 June 2012 where you will note I have agreed with your comments and comply with them. For example, even PM Gillard speaking to Jim Wallace on ACL TV - refer your 14:21, 6 October 2012 request. While I though that was a defendable inclusion, I removed it. The current Grotekennis-editing has removed the citation to Wallace's words. Particularly as the matter is controversial, it is highly appropriate that Wikipedia quotes exactly what he said - not what others say he said. Also, the basis for what he says has been crudely removed. Keep in mind there are dozens of 'expert-witnesses' against Wallace/ACL on these pages. Wikipedia is not for anyone's personal positions - even if that position is backed up by 'sceientific-evidence'. More-over the 'Cigarette/health' matter is covered already in the Controversy and criticism section. If more criticism of Wallace is required, please add the cited-criticism-of-ACL/Wallace, in the Controversy and criticism section and not in a form designed to "shift the article in favour" of a position. It seems that this Grotekennis-information better belongs in Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality - or in a related Wikipedia site.

Sam56mas (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll reply to your concerns about my changes now. I have not yet even looked at Grotekennis edits; I will review these and take your concerns into account either tomorrow or the day after but that is not going to happen now as I am too busy.

You mention I have retained two citations to GetUp! petitions. The first citation to the GetUp petition comes from a neutral source and also cites the ACL petition. I have added an inline citation to make this fact obvious to readers. The source does not pick a side, it just reports the facts of both sides and gives both an opportunity to speak. I could not imagine a more appropriate source. The other source that backed up the ACL petition came from a questionable source (anyone can write on OLO) and was written by someone with a clear conflict on interest. The deciding factor in me removing it was that as well as being less reliable, it added nothing new. The neutral article backs up the numbers in the ACL petition AND the fact the petition was organised and collated by ACL. The other reference is not needed, and I actually think it benefits you that this point no longer has to rely on a source that is undeniably less reliable.

The other reference I removed isn't even an article. It is an online open letter to supporters of the ACL on a biased website. This is inappropriate for the same reason it would be inappropriate to use GetUp original counter-petition itself (on the GetUp website) as a reference. I would never consider using the GetUp website as a reference; GetUp's actions only become notable by wikipedia's standards once they have been reported by the mainstream media (and that's how I feel about the ACL's actions also). And once again, everything the biased Brindabella Baptist reference supported is also backed up by the neutral reference, so it is redundant anyway. I strongly stand by my decision to remove these two references.

I've taken into consideration that you pointed out the lead up to the vote has been extensively chronicled on these pages, and that all the 'voting numbers' citations were particularly selected to mention ACL. That's a very good point, I didn't think about that. Accordingly I am content for that paragraph to remain now.

I'll get back to you about Grotekennis edits. And Grotekennis, Sam56mas has a valid point, it would be more helpful to all editors (even the ones that share your opinion of the ACL) if you explained each of your edits as much as you can using the edit summary. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, looking at Grotekennis' contested edits one by one.

13. Eh. This is a common abbreviation that I don't think it really needs detailed explanation (the purpose of explanation being to help the reader), but I honestly don't care enough about this either way to argue about it any further.

12. Even though the point Grotekennis is making is valid (in my opinion at least), this is not specifically mentioned in the reference. This edit should accordingly be reverted.

11. If these references don't mention the ACL (which I don't think they do, the first one - tl;dr, and I don't want to create an account just to be able to read the other one) these edits should be reverted

10. Language like "Whipped to vote . " should definitely be removed and replaced with neutral terms. And if the reference did not say "against the passage of marriage equality" accordingly that language should not be used. Revert it back to the way it is written in the reference.

8, 7, 5, 4 and 3. The unexplained removal of reference should be reverted. Changing the language from the way it appears in the reference should be reverted. References that do not mention the ACL should be removed.

2. Agree with Sam56mas. I am assuming good faith for now but if this happens again I would consider it vandalism. Grotekennis, why did you remove this paragraph?

Sam56mas as you can see I agree with most of your concerns. Do keep in mind that Grotekennis is a new editor. He is, ironically, editing in an extremely similar manner to which you were when you started editing this article. My point is maybe he just doesn't know you're not allowed to 'spin' the facts like he has. Assume good faith for now. Also if I've completely missed something let me know. I was quite tired when I looked over this.

Also Grotekennis, can you please start formatting your references using Template:Cite web? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I will progressively respond.Sam56mas (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam, some of your edits make it seem as if you are here to promote the ACL - they are heavily biased in favor of the ACL - I would like to know why? To answer each of the concerns: the abbreviation is common and usually used, any wording which is unreferenced is because I assumed it is common knowledge (e.g. the Nazi persecution one). As for 'whipped' - this is a parliamentary term. As to the change in language - if an exact phrase that someone used is to be in the article it should be in quotes - otherwise it can be paraphrased, such as what I did. Finally, the paragraph was not simply removed - part of it was replaced with accurate and related scientific statements - please have a look Freikrop, thanks. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, confusion about what you are doing can be avoided if you use the edit summary to explain your edits. I'm glad you used it for your last edit. That being said, please specify what part of Wikipedia:NPOV you think this paragraph is violating. You said regarding your original edit 'the paragraph was not simply removed - part of it was replaced with accurate and related scientific statements'. Which I fine (as far as justifying why the edit is made), but now you have removed it and not replaced it with anything. Please be more specific than simply citing NPOV.

Regarding you other comments: placing exact phrases in quotes is fine, as is pointing out who said it (For example in the National Marriage Day section it says "The Sydney Morning Herald described the event as a "rally to ridicule gay marriage", it doesn't just say the event was a rally to ridicule gay marriage) If you are going to paraphrase, your edits may be contested, depending on the language you use. I would suggest you stick to putting things in quotes or pointing out who said it, as this in itself cannot be contested.

Unfortunately it does not matter how accurate and relative your scientific references are. This is not an article debating whether or not the ACL is correct or not. It is a neutral encyclopaedia article which reports on what they ACL have done, and how society has specifically reacted to what they have done. Even if your references point out something the ACL have stated is incorrect, unless they mention the ACL (thereby indicating the ACL influenced the references creation, or at least part of it) they should not be used.

The ACL make a lot of outrageously distorted claims here. Example: The ACL state they are against euthanasia because it could lead to people taking their own lives for trivial reasons. This concern is absolutely absurd. There are several active pro-euthanasia groups within Australia and not a single one of them is advocating for people to be able to take their own lives if they do not have a terminal illness. This is a baseless scare tactic that the ACL are using to lobby against euthanasia. However that is fine because wikipedia simply reports what people/organisation do. The ACL have opposed euthanasia on the grounds people would be able to take their own lives for trivial reasons; fact. The reader can make up their own mind on whether the ACL's concern is valid or not. As much as I'd like to I can't just point out to the reader that the ACL concern is baseless, because I don't have a reference that specifically criticises the ACL for saying this. Accordingly you cannot point out that Jim Wallace's concerns are 'directly refuted by the world's major scientific institutions and organisations' using references that do not mention Jim Wallace or the ACL. Freikorp (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikorp, I completely agree with you. Grotekennis, There is a consensus here. Sam56mas (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikorp, I would appreciate your wisdom / adjudication to resolve the "Jim Wallace has said . . . " paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam56mas (talk • contribs) 11:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have serious concerns as to whether you have a conflict of interest, Sam. Freikorp, please see Talk:Australian_Christian_Lobby#POV_concerns. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The first thing I am doing to end this dispute is taking the contested source for the intro paragraph to the reliable sources noticeboard. I have already lodges a submission and mentioned Grotekennis' concern that the source is too promotional. Once they get back to me with whether or not this source may be used I will begin looking in to the other concerns here. One step at a time; quite frankly I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the changes being made to this article. Freikorp (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Balance

Seems reasonable to believe (re SSM) that the Australian public, the politicians, and ACL know that the vote taken in the House of Representatives was very significant. With the vote in the Senate, as significant. The Tasmanian vote would be of limited significance. With an opinion of Tas LC pollies being of very limited significance. However on these Wikipedia pages there are two sentences devoted to the House of Representatives' response and 15 sentences to the Adshel bus-shelter issues. A variation of the Parkinson bike-shed. I firmly believe that the Australian public, reading ACL Wikipedia, will make up their own minds on the issues and balance presented.Sam56mas (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Freikrop (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC) > Agree with Sam56mas. I am assuming good faith for now but if this happens again I would consider it vandalism.

Grotekennis (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC) > Revert per Wikipedia:NPOV

Sam56mas (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC) > We have a problem here

POV concerns

Sam, from your edit history it seems quite obvious that you are here promote the ACL. Your edits are heavily biased towards the ACL, and you still haven't replied to this concern. I would also like to know whether you are associated with the ACL - basically, do you have a conflict of interest? --Grotekennis (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Any POV I have, or you have, is irrelevant here. Considering all the explanation detailed above the response is: Contributions to Wikipedia are to be judged on their adherence to Wikipeda's Policies and Guidelines. If a contribution does not adhere to these encyclopedic-requirements, it needs to be modified, or removed. Sam56mas (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)— Sam56mas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. It is quite clear that you should probably not editing this article, you appear to have a strong conflict of interest here, and seem to associated with the ACL in some form or other. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Sam56mas, that's precisely the problem; whatever bias or affiliation you have is preventing you from making edits that adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - among them SPS and NPOV - and prompting you to revert other users' constructive edits. You could help improve the article by correcting non-neutral language (eg. "protect marriage" or "advocate for marriage" for banning same-sex marriage) and by trimming out the stuff from the ACL's website, op-eds by its leadership, and other promotional sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I am prepared to work through issues which you may wish to raise. Sam56mas (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam, it would be appreciated if you took note of what concerns I and other editors have raised. --Grotekennis (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Additionally the source you are trying to use for the first part of your edit is promotional (as stated before), and the third source for the second part of your edit (in which you remove information with a great amount of reliable and credible sources) appears to be from a POV site of sorts, which is not credible nor reliable and therefore cannot be used. --Grotekennis (talk) 07:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

>Note: In accordance with a recommendation by a volunteer at the Dispute resolution noticeboard I have changed the part of the paragraph which previously began with "It should be noted...". Accordingly, that part of the paragraph, in its updated form, should therefore remain, for it is abundantly sourced and important information to provide to the readers of this article. --Grotekennis (talk) 08:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like there is going to be a fair amount of editing coming up, so I just thought I'd let everyone know after tomorrow I won't be available to edit wikipedia at all until November 7th 2012. Just didn't want anyone thinking I was ignoring any issues. Freikorp (talk) 09:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting "Origin" section

The tone in the main part of this section wasn't very appropriate. "Three men from different denominational affiliations and backgrounds founded...", "brainchild" — it's supposed to be purely informational, not a speech. I've tried to establish some more encyclopedic discourse. Please see what you think:

The first paragraph originally:

Three men from different denominational affiliations and backgrounds founded the Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) in 1995. At the time of the founding, two of them resided in Canberra and one in Brisbane. The lobby group was the brainchild of John Gagliardi, a lay leader of a large Pentecostal church in Brisbane, who stated that the vision was to create an organisation that would have influence in the political arena, on behalf of all Christians, no matter what denomination. Gagliardi’s background was in journalism, and he held positions as Editor of the Townsville Bulletin and as anchorman for the Channel 10 news. John McNicoll was a retired Baptist Minister turned lobbyist in Canberra before becoming involved in the Australian Christian Coalition. John Miller worked with a number of community and government organisations and held leadership positions within his independent, community-based church.

My rewrite:

The Australian Christian Coalition (ACC) was founded in 1995 on the initiative of John Gagliardi, a lay leader of a large Pentecostal church in Brisbane. Gagliardi stated that the [or should that be "his"?] vision was to create an organisation that would have influence in the political arena, on behalf of all Christians, no matter what denomination. Gagliardi had held [or should the tense remain as "Gagliardi held"? I. e., did he still hold them in 1995?] journalistic positions as editor of the Townsville Bulletin and as anchorman for the Channel 10 news. Co-founders were John McNicoll, a retired Baptist Minister turned lobbyist in Canberra, and John Miller. Miller worked with a number of community and government organisations and held [or "had held"?] leadership positions within his independent, community-based church.

The paragraph contained some redundance, such as "Gagliardi’s background was in journalism" — yes, obviously, since he'd held the journalistic positions named — and that John McNicoll turned lobbyist in Canberra "before becoming involved in the Australian Christian Coalition" — again obviously, since the paragraph is surely supposed to describe the three men's status at the time of the founding of the ACC. Nevertheless it was short on hard facts, to the point of confusion, and devoid of references. Is the term "the lobby group" merely a meaningless-variation way of saying ACC again, or does it refer to a subgroup within it? (I've assumed the former, but please correct the text if I misunderstood.) And, while there's no reason to doubt that Gagliardi stated that the vision was to create an organisation that would, etc, in what context did he say that? Some kind of founding charter?

Why leave it vague which of the three resided in Canberra and which in Brisbane? If the informatian about residence is deemed to be of interest (I have my doubts; why would we care?), please reinsert it with specifics.

The sentence about John Miller is particularly vague and fluffy ("worked with", "leadership positions"). I've left it for now, but can we please have a reference for him and/or his "community-based church" (perhaps also a name for the latter)? And a less generally admiring tone?

I've made the paragraph shorter by removing fluff, but I don't necessarily want it shorter; please add facts, per my above points. And I really recommend doing something about the John Miller sentence. I'd do it myself, but the information it provides just isn't factual enough for me to know what to write instead.

P.S. Oh, and is there some way of referring to all or part of "the Channel 10 news" that will make it linkable to a wiki article? Bishonen | talk 11:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC).

That section did previously read a bit like story too much. Good work with the rewrite! --Grotekennis (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN and Sources

As pointed at the DRN, sources that do not mention the Australian Christian Lobby or that does not make more that a passing mention should be removed from the article. I would like to make a source-by-source scan to see which references are worthy of being here, and which aren't but I don't have the time enough for it. So, i'd like to ask the editors involved to give me a hand at this. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the article for two days because of the edit warring. Please make an effort to discuss the changes instead of continually reverting. Let me know if more protection is needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The corruption of Wikipedia

In summary: At Australian Christian Lobby over the last month article-text conforming to Wikipedia's P&Gs have been deleted and/or replaced. In the deleting/replacing: Wiki P&Gs - have been ignored. Consensus against this - has been ignored. Best efforts of independent editors to explain this should not be done - have been ignored. A threat of being labelled 'vandalism' - has been ignored. Reliable Source Noticeboard consensus against - has been ignored. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard consensus against - has been ignored.

The issue seems to have condensed down to a dispute over two paras.

__________________________________________________________

The original paragraph Jim Wallace has said that, "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes".[30] Australian doctor, David van Gend says that his concern[31] is underpinned by Australian and overseas research.[32] The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen backing Jim Wallace, has said we need to consider, "why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way."[33]

[Citations [30] to [33] all mention ACL].

The replaced paragraph Jim Wallace has said that, "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". According to the world's major scientific institutions and organisations no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others. However, prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people does cause psychological harm, and homophobia and lack of acceptance can increase the risks of suidial feelings, health risks, anxiety and depression, especially among LGBT children, who are the most vulnerable.[30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

[Citations [30] to [34] do not contain any reference to ACL. The original citation [30] for "Jim Wallace has said . . . " has been deleted].

In relation to Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines The original paragraph conforms to WP:PG. The replaced paragraph contravenes WP:PG specifically WP:NOR for, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article," (namely ACL) "and directly support the material being presented." (namely Wallace's statement) The replaced paragraph simply promotes a contrary position.

In relation to a consensus This matter has been discussed extensively over the last month on this Talk page The consensus was that the, Replaced paragraph should be removed. When to taken to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_134#trowelandsword.org.au - another consensus. When taken to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Australian_Christian_Lobby - again a consensus. RSB Outcome > The Replaced para should be removed - no ifs, no buts. One of the contributing editors Righteousskills says, that the paragraph should be removed. Editor Grotekennis defiantly quotes Righteousskills (as effectively) saying, that the paragraph should not be removed. For the two dissenting editors, their most significant contributions to arriving at a consensus were: Editor Dominus_Vobisdu "Not at all interested. Never was" and Editor Grotekennis "I have not had time to take part", who also provided a number of fuzzy statements along with some diversionary questions - refer above. Yet, they both find the time to delete article-text within minutes of its uploading. For Dominus_Vobisdu, significant contributions to Wikipedia seem to be: Exterminate!-Exterminate!-editing accompanied by a few cryptic words. Following the most recent sledge-hammer editing by Dominus_Vobisdu, the ACL article is now left with two Origin paragraphs.

In relation to scientific research While the replaced paragraph cites overseas research, a recent (17 Oct 2012) Australian 'scientific study', is the Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales, HIV cases in Australia is on the rise http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 A interesting read. The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". This refutes the "no greater health risk" sentence currently in the Replaced paragraph. That is a Wilson - Wallace consensus. Interestingly the Jensen citation supporting Wallace (also deleted) refers the need for 'compassion and objectivity.' http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html Jensen went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well". Beyond the tragedy of HIV/AIDS for those directly involved including friends, relatives and carers etc, the Australian community is also involved. Beyond the considerable health and welfare costs, HIV research gets $13m boost http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/10/22/hiv-research-gets-13m-boost/87469 (being the Australian 'scientific research' cost, alone) Further - scientific research based findings from Australia - "Gonorrhoea, chlamydia, infectious syphilis and HIV continue to be diagnosed at high rates among men who have sex with men (MSM)". http://www.thedramadownunder.info/static/uploads/sti_testing_guidelines_for_msm_-_updated_2011.pdf

In relation to natural justice Wallace is already extensively criticised for his 'health' statement in the article Controversy and criticism section. Fine - those criticisms were done in conformity with WP:PGs. Natural Justice says Wallace is entitled to defend himself. The replaced paragraph does not allow for that Natural Justice.

In relation to the homosexual community Those censoring the truth do a disservice to the homosexual community. It does not help in putting the case to taxpayers for funding for a problem which apparently does not exist.

In relation to Wikipedia If anyone can simply add their own opinions (even if supported by others) then Wikipedia is corrupted. Wikipedia then is not an encyclopaedia - it is something else. All this crude editing-propaganda undertaken by Wikipedia editors establishes that Jim Wallace is correct.

In relation to Wikipedia editors Based on the above precedent, you can now just add what you like - don't worry about explanations, ignore WP:PGs, don't bother participating in forums or noticeboards, just keep deleting what you don't like and adding what you prefer.

Keep in mind if Wikipedia editors leave this clearly WP:PG-contravening Replaced paragraph unchallenged, they can no longer claim to be creditable.

The two losers in all this are (1) Wikipedia's credibility and (2) the homosexual community's integrity. __________________________________________________________

In 72 hours, either provide a meaningful response, or rectify the paragraph, or both, or I will. Sam56mas (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Sam, you've been completely dismissive of everything several editors have told you and completely ignore everything we have to say. I would suggest that you read everything which has been told to you by several editors in previous discussions (relevant policies/guidelines being WP:NPOV, WP:SPS, etc), and stop pushing your POV across into the article (again see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts - these, especially the first, would probably indicate that you should not be pushing across POV edits on this article as you have been). Finally, ending your comment with the threat does you great disservice - and your entire comment (starting with the heading) has an inappropriate tone to it (see also WP:AGF and WP:BATTLEGROUND). Thank you. --Grotekennis (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and before you accuse me of being slow to respond (regardless, I did respond with my above comment quickly), I should note that my first priority is real life, so sometimes I may take some time to respond. And, again, as stated above, pushing threats such as what you did at the end of your comment is not appropriate on Wikipedia - please assume good faith, realise that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and refrain from any personal attacks, whether obvious or mild/implied. --Grotekennis (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read every word of all your comments. However, you have not yet explained why a 'Wikipedia Core content policy'-conforming para has to be removed and replaced with your non-conforming-WP:OR para.

I have read every word of all the various independent editors, both on this talk page and in noticeboards (including Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Australian_Christian_Lobby) on this subject. A typical comment, "Grotekennis doesn't seem to understand that wikipedia is not an opinion article, and that you cannot build a paragraph criticising the ACL using references that do not mention them". All editors agree ( = a consensus) that your WP:OR para is to be deleted. In your responses, you have not addressed (avoided addressing?) this pivotal WP:OR issue.

BTW you quote CDC > youth.htm (which is not what Wallace is saying) - with respect, try CDC > msm.htm http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/msm.htm (re homosexual-lifestyle > health-outcomes - which is what Wallace is saying).

With respect, you should examine what are Wikipedia's Core content policies and what are Wikipedia's Behavioural guidelines. Yes, you are right, I do have a POV. My POV is that Wiki P&Gs should be adhered to. I also have a POV regarding your attempt at censorship. I have another POV regarding your ongoing obfuscation and fillibustering which started here five weeks ago. Editor Freikorp used the term "vandalism" in relation to what you are doing. The issue is not whether Wallace is right or wrong. The issue is not how he expressed what he said. The issue is your sentence, "This conflicts with the position of . . . " which conflicts with Wikipedia Editorial Policy.

Editor Amadscientist says (regarding a possible next step), "This is a clear case for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct". However, before taking that step, to help resolve this impasse, my proposal is for your WP:OR criticism of Wallace to be placed along with the other criticisms of Wallace, within the Controversy and criticism section of the article. Sam56mas (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My proposal is to remove this:

Wallace's concern[31] is underpinned by Australian and overseas research.[32][33] The Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen backing Jim Wallace, has said we need to consider, "why this may be the case and we need to do it in a compassionate and objective way."[34]

and this:

This conflicts with the position of major scientific institutions and organisations, which state that no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others.[105][106] [107] [108] [109]

and to leave only Wallace original statement.--В и к и T 10:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a fringe position related to science and medicine, and the mainstream view must be clearly presented as such per WP:FRINGE. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I now agree with you after reading WP:FRINGE.--В и к и T 10:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Before trying to justify a deletion as a, "fringe medical/scientific claim", and saying the "mainstream view must be clearly presented" please re-read the extensive discussion starting here. You may prefer a summary-of-the-major-issues-version, starting here. Please re-read the actual words Wallace used > "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". Please also carefully consider the above para, which is reproduced below.

In relation to scientific research While the replaced paragraph cites overseas research, a recent (17 Oct 2012) Australian 'scientific study', is the Kirby Institute's Surveillance and Evaluation Program for Public Health at the University of New South Wales, HIV cases in Australia is on the rise http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 A interesting read. The head of the Institute, Associate Professor David Wilson, said the real rise in the number of cases, "was of concern". This refutes the "no greater health risk" sentence currently in the Replaced paragraph. That is a Wilson - Wallace consensus. Interestingly the Jensen citation supporting Wallace (also deleted) refers the need for 'compassion and objectivity.' http://www.smh.com.au/national/anglican-archbishop-backs-christian-lobbys-gay-views-20120910-25ogi.html Jensen went on to say, "It's very hard to get to the facts here because we don't want to talk about it, and in this country censorship is alive and well". Beyond the tragedy of HIV/AIDS for those directly involved including friends, relatives and carers etc, the Australian community is also involved. Beyond the considerable health and welfare costs, HIV research gets $13m boost http://www.starobserver.com.au/news/2012/10/22/hiv-research-gets-13m-boost/87469 (being the Australian 'scientific research' cost, alone) Further - scientific research based findings from Australia - "Gonorrhoea, chlamydia, infectious syphilis and HIV continue to be diagnosed at high rates among men who have sex with men (MSM)". http://www.thedramadownunder.info/static/uploads/sti_testing_guidelines_for_msm_-_updated_2011.pdf

The Kirby Institute http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/ (reference also deleted) is (by far) Australia's foremost scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle and health outcomes. Sam56mas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can provide a cite for "Australia's foremost scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle and health outcomes." A search on their site for "homosexual lifestyle" yields no results, and there is no evidence that this organization is authoritative on this subject. - MrX 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Kirby claims their mission is to: "lead the research effort against blood-borne viruses and related infections in Australia and in our region" http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/about-us . They undertake research work on this http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/research-program/hiv-epidemiology-and-prevention-program/about-program But OK, I will reword the sentence to, The Kirby Institute http://www.kirby.unsw.edu.au/ (reference also deleted) is an Australian scientific organisation examining homosexual lifestyle health issues.

Of note, the (non-conforming WP:OR) sentence proposed, This conflicts with the position of . . no sexual orientation in and of itself . . , is an example of weasel wording [also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word] designed to move the issue away from the lifestyle issue which Wallace has raised. Sam56mas (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"Homosexual lifestyle" itself is a weasel phrase. We don't know the meaning. It's a phrase often used by Christian fundamentalists to denigrate LGBT people.

I don't know what you're trying to prove? You do not seem to understand the difference between sexual orientation and sexual behavior, but that's only part of the problem. Position of all major scientific institutions and organisations is that no sexual orientation in and of itself carries any greater health risks than others. Perhaps they are all wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place for righting of great wrongs. You're essentially trying to prove that Wallace was right when he said that "homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes", and you quote opinion pieces from conservative blog "mercatornet.com" (one of the main editors of that blog is Michael Cook, member of Opus Dei) with WP:CHERRY-picked "scientific" facts. Your links about HIV/AIDS are irrelevant here. The most frequent mode of transmission of HIV is through unprotected sexual contact, both heterosexual and homosexual. But the dominant mode of spread worldwide for HIV remains heterosexual transmission. Does that mean that "heterosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". We have article about HIV/AIDS (interesting read).--В и к и T 23:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS indeed is an interesting read including, "The epidemic then rapidly spread among high-risk groups . . ." and cite [191] Sam56mas (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Starting from your "I don't know . . . right through to disastrous health outcomes" is all an attempt to divert from the facts, researched by Kirby http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hiv-cases-in-australia-is-on-the-rise/story-e6frg6n6-1226497432701 and from other sources. While you say, "you do not seem to understand. . ", I fully understand the distinction between sexual-orientation and sexual-behavior/lifestyle. Rather it is the proposed (non-conforming WP:OR) sentence, This conflicts with the position of major scientific . . which obviously confuses/conflates the two descriptors.

Considering this Wikipedia article extensively cites the Sydney Star Observer, Australian Marriage Equality etc, pejorative references to Mercator Net, Michael Cook, Christian fundamentalists etc don't carry much weight. In regards to your last four sentences: It is true, some heterosexual lifestyles can have disastrous health outcomes, Kirby found, "The (HIV/AIDS) increase was among homosexual men and there was no real rise in heterosexual people last year" - the point Wallace was making. While it is true that heterosexual transmission is the dominant mode of HIV spread worldwide, that has limited bearing on the problem here in Australia.

I believe that it is exceeding preciousness and attempts at censorship which are underlying much of the above discussion. Be that as it may, the facts remain the facts. Sam56mas (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A note for Dominus Vobisdu (re "fringe science organisations") and MrX (re "there is no evidence that this organization is authoritative") Australian researchers have been active in HIV/AIDS research since the early 1980s.[38] The most prominent research organisation is the Kirby Institute (formerly National Centre in HIV Epidemiology & Clinical Research), based at the University of New South Wales, regarded as a leading research institution internationally, and a recipient of one of the first grants of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation outside the United States.[39] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_Australia#Ongoing_research_and_awareness-raising_efforts While sourced from Wikipedia - the citation [39] is paywall protected - but you can find it and read it. Sam56mas (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference query

I might weigh in here in due course, but for now, I'd be grateful if an editor could provide the citation for the Wallace comment, debated above, that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". In the midst of this very dense discussion and turbulent edit history, I can't actually find where this comment was reported. Assistance anybody? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The removed citation > http://media.smh.com.au/news/national-times/its-all-in-the-packaging-3614462.html Sam56mas (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sam. I see the mutual reverting is continuing. I thought i would jot down my initial thoughts on this debate. First of all, ACL's view on this matter is a fringe view. Specifically, I mean that it is a fringe view that homosexuality has problematic health outcomes. Risk-taking behaviour is another matter, but risk-taking behaviour is not causally linked to homosexuality. I understand why some editors are inserting the material designed to set out the fringe nature of the view. I also understand why Sam is noting that the cited sources are not related to ACL and therefore reverting. I had thought of one potential solution to this, but I'm having trouble finding sources for implementing it. It would be to say:

"ACL representative Jim Wallace caused significant controversy when he stated on X date in Y that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". The incident led to media questioning of ACL's influence and representativeness example, as other organisations such as Y and experts such as Z pointed out that the evidence on which the ACL's claim was poor,example and that the clinical consensus is that blah blah".

However, it relies on finding media or other reliable sources that explicitly link rebuttal of ACL to the professional position papers / academic literature that is currently being cited in the article. I've not found much yet, but others may. I suspect the ACL views were regarded as so extreme that people may not have bothered to go to the literature in their rebuttals. But it may be possible to turn something up. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

hamiltonstone thank you. Suggested modification of your proposal:

"Jim Wallace stated on X date in Y that "the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes". reference 1 Wallace's concern is underpinned by Australian and overseas research. reference 2,reference 3 Jensen said . . . . ." reference 4

Controversy and criticism

"In 2012 Prime Minister Julia Gillard decided to pull out of her planned appearance at the ACL national conference after Jim Wallace made remarks that were interpreted as suggesting that homosexuality was more hazardous to health than smoking. Ms Gillard called the comments "heartless", "wrong" and "totally unacceptable".[104] The incident led to media questioning of ACL's influence and representativeness. reference 5 Other organisations such as Y and experts such as Z pointed out that the evidence from one study undertaken in Colorado was dubious. reference 6 The clinical consensus is that . . . ".

There is a section within this article dedicated to the various Controversies and criticisms of ACL. If this 'health' C&C (under discussion) is not to be placed in the C&C section, it is fair to ask what is special about this particular C&C? There has been some confusion / blurring of the terms sexual identity/orientation & behavior/lifestyle. Wallace was obviously talking about the latter.

ACL's concern is not 'extreme' or 'fringe' considering the personal and society costs involved and when Associate Professor David Wilson, (head of Kirby Institute), said [1] the matter is of, "concern". Wallace talked more than just lifespan and HIV/AIDS. References 2 and 3 pick up the science underpinning those other concerns, as well as the Kirby research.

There are three studies, quoted, which showed a reduction in life-expectancy. The Canadian study and the Lancet-reported Europe and North America study are discussed and linked in reference 2. The Canadian study was again addressed in reference 3. There was also a Colorado study addressed in reference 6. The Colorado study was debunked in reference 6. Other life-studies and the other issues were not mentioned in reference 6. All three studies deserve to be presented. Sam56mas (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A few points.

• First, I'm not convinced that criticism and controversy should be separate overall. In particular, i don't think it's wise to separate criticisms of the subject's views from the part of the article where those views are expressed. They should be in the same section. As an example where I was recently (tangentially) editing, see the Mitt Romney article (recently promoted to Feature Article status), in which Romney's achievements, and the criticisms of them, are kept together in, for example, a section on Salt Lake City, or the section on his Massachusetts governorship. So it should be here.
• Second, David van Gend is not a neutral source and can't be used to say something like "Wallace's concern is underpinned by Australian and overseas research"; I'm also not clear whether Mercatornet qualifies as a reliable source - do you know if this has been discussed elsewhere?
• Third, the mercatornet article is propagandising by seriously misrepresenting the 1997 study. The study was a modelling exercise, it did not work with actual mortality data. When you further realise that is was based on morbidity assumptions that relied on the treatment of HIV/AIDS in the mid-1990s, there is no way that the conclusions would be in any way reliable as to actual health outcomes. But even if you were to set all those problems aside, it misses an absolutely fundamental point: you don't get HIV/AIDS because you are gay. Period. It isn't a product of sexual orientation: it is a product of disease prevalence and behaviours that may lead to exposure. The misrepresentation of the study in that mercatornet piece highlights why we should work with the most reliable possible sources.
• Fourth, the Lancet piece is irrelevant because it is about HIV positive life expectancy. It is not about homosexual life expectancy. It really is as simple as that: it is the end of the discussion, because Wallace wasn't talking about HIV, he was talking about homosexuality. Which brings me to:
• Fifth, I'm sorry, but linking health outcomes to homosexuality is fringe. ACL's views on gay marriage are minority but not fringe, its views on film censorship are minority but not fringe, but on this particular matter there is no contemporary science of consequence that I am aware of that supports the proposition that homosexuality causes a reduction in life expectancy. In this respect, you say that Wallace was "obviously talking about the latter" (meaning behaviour). I did not think that wasn't obvious at all. He said "THE homosexual lifestyle" - he did not "SOME homosexual behaviour" - it wasn't qualified. He was also given an opportunity (I believe) to qualify or back away from that kind of statement and essentially did not. There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle: it doesn't exist. There are people who have a homosexual orientation, there are men who have sex with men, there are homosexual and bisexual people who have lifelong monogamous relationships, like some heterosexuals, and homosexual and bisexual people who have multiple partners like other heterosexuals. There is no "homosexual lifestyle", so one can only conclude that he was talking about homosexual orientation. This conclusion is reinforced by his linking of his concern to the issue of gay marriage. If a homosexual couple marry, they are making an undertaking to a relationship that involves the same sexual behaviours as a heterosexual couple. There would not therefore be any behavioural difference. He must therefore be referring to sexual orientation, not behaviour.

Having said all of that, there is still a reasonable discussion to be had about how we communicate these things in the WP article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reasonable and detailed way in which you have discussed this matter. You will note that most of the modifications (aka relentless creative improvements - obviously by those not supporting ACL) are done with limited or no justification - with some of these (repeated) modifications (even) blatantly defying WIki Core Content Policies. Some other examples > in the last few minutes > removing a (previously agreed) reference supporting ACL, burying the remaining ACL-support reference amongst all the various ACL-critics, removing all references to the issues which are currently under discussion on this TP. All of this (and more) while ignoring that the ACL Origin has been corrupted / duplicated by previous editing-efforts.

Responding

• First: Re Criticism section: Possibly, however that is the way someone set up the structure in this article. Further, structuring of criticism is a problem when criticism spans a number of issues, or are bigger (at least in 'wordage terms') than the issue itself.
• Second: Many of the criticisms on this article page come from people who could not be considered as 'neutral sources'. I don't know if Mercator net has been tested as a RS. However, it is not a blog. It does have editorial oversight etc. But the facts presented remain the facts. (but if further RS testing is to be undertaken, then various (anti-ACL) sources cited such as australianmarriageequality.com also need to be RS-assessed)
• Third & Fourth: Sorry, Wallace raised a point. People understand what he is saying - irrespective of 'legalistic' deconstructions of his words.
• Fifth: ACL's view on gay marriage are hardly 'a minority'. Their 'view' has been endorsed by Australian parliaments. (You might read Andrews re the conscience vote numbers.) Again, ACL views on film classifications (pejoratively termed as censorship) are endorsed by a significant number of Australians - particularly many parents. Implying that there are no heath differences between monogamous homosexual and heterosexual sexual behavors is an over-statement, considering this. It seems there is an attempt to legalistically, (and completely) nullify what Wallace said, because he he did not include the word 'SOME' and did include the word 'LIFESTYLE'. These attempts have been going on over the last five weeks, which have included the ignoring of the outcome of two separate Wikipedia Noticeboard deliberations.

As you say (particularly following the Kirby findings and the Jensen position on 'opportunity to talk', 'compassion', 'objectivity' and 'censorship', "there is still a reasonable discussion to be had about how we communicate these things". Thank you. Sam56mas (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC).

I'm not sure if you might be referring to my recent edits, which I have tried to explain in my edit summaries, but would be happy to expand upon here. My goal is for this article to be written in an encyclopedic manner, thus my reasoning for rearranging some content. I think the article needs some restructuring and I think there may be excessive detail in some parts.

I removed the statement from Wallace ("the homosexual lifestyle has some disastrous health outcomes") because it was an orphaned paragraph, without context, in an inappropriate section of the article. It should probably be included in the Controversy and criticism section, as there does not seem to be an effort by the ACL to lobby to solve this perceived "disastrous health outcome" issue.

If anyone believes that my edits are not being made in good faith, by all means let me know, directly. - MrX 23:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Reorganization

I would like to propose that the content of the article be reorganized to better align with similar articles, and to present the subject in a less disjointed manner, without a separate Controversy and Criticism section per WP:NOCRIT. As a starting point, here is a proposed outline.

1. Lede
2. History
   1. Origin (including a brief mention of their organisational structure)
   2. Purpose (Aims)
3. Lobbying and issues
   1. Family related issues
      1. Youth and education
      2. Poverty
   2. LGBT related issues
      1. Same-sex marriage/marriage equality related issues (including Nazi inferences and National Marriage Day)
      2. LGBT rights (Medicare, inheritance, government entitlements, hospital visitation, anti-discrimination)
      3. Health issues (?)
   3. Censorship (including video games, Cineplex Australia and Adshel advertisements)
   4. Other issues
      1. Gambling
      2. Religious discrimination
      3. Euthanasia
      4. Abortion
      5. Prostitution

The goal would be to organize by topic, in a more neutral fashion. I'm open to all ideas on how to improve this, including better wording for headings. - MrX 02:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

While re-organising the article structure may be beneficial - and there are a number of problems with the above proposal, take things one step at time and firstly resolve the matter under discussion. Sam56mas (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a policy reason that requires such a serial approach. The issue under discussion can continue to be discussed while the overall article is improved. I would be interested in hearing thoughts on what I have proposed. - MrX 05:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is not at all a matter of a "policy reason that requires such a serial approach". It is because people may be distracted and miss responding to on-going discussions (now) further up the page. As an illustration of that problem - you have missed responding to the very valid points raised by hamiltonstone 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC) and hamiltonstone 11:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC). You have also missed(?) the my responding comments - including the now-duplicated Origin (caused by one of Dominus Vobisdu's crude edits ) - all now a long way above.

I have read the comments. The points raised by hamiltonstone seem very reasonable to me. I have also read the 'Rewriting "Origin" section and see comments from Bishonen and Grotekennis, but none from you.' In support of the discussion, I did some minor copy editing of the Origin section and added a source citation. - MrX

Re the proposed re-organisation: Somewhere you missed ACL lobbying for 'marriage'. It is a very dubious POV to say that ACL is lobbying for(?) / against(?) LTBT related issues. There are obvious weighting-considerations in categorising issues the way you have. Censorship is a loaded word. ACL is supporting media classifications. Critics (some right here, doing their own censoring) say ACL is advocating censorship. You say about the current layout, "it seems like good pitted against evil". Rather, I say, "it looks like a bad marriage". Suggest a divorce might be the best way forward. Suggest creating a separate 'Criticism of ACL' type article WP:NOCRIT#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism > "Criticism of ... article" This approach is generally discouraged, but it is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics to avoid confusion that may result if negative viewpoints were interwoven with the description of the primary viewpoint. (which is another very real problem with the above layout). If there was a 'Criticism of ACL' article you would not be bothered by me editing it - and that is a promise. Sam56mas (talk)

"It is a very dubious POV to say that ACL is lobbying for(?) / against(?) LTBT related issues."

I never said anything of the sort. I was advocating arranging content by issue, irrespective of whether ACL is for or against each issue.

"Censorship is a loaded word."

Loaded with what? Truth? Verifiability? Read the last paragraph in the 'Issues related to censorship' section.

"You say about the current layout, "it seems like good pitted against evil". Rather, I say, "it looks like a bad marriage". Suggest a divorce might be the best way forward. Suggest creating a separate 'Criticism of ACL' type article "

That would be a WP:POVFORK.

I acknowledge the possibility that it may not be best to integrate the criticism into the rest of the article. The outline I proposed was merely a suggestion to test the waters and see if other editors also thought that a restructuring would be helpful. - MrX 13:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Reference query (continued)

MrX thank you for joining the discussion. With respect, firstly a few questions.

1 Did you track back the Miranda Devine "unused reference that was causing as error message" - for a starter, which was removed (again) 6 minutes later - again without reason - rather than simply just more deleting?

I thought it was an orphaned reference from the sentence I removed. I guess that was not the case, so I apologize for the blunder. - MrX

2 Why did you relegate Robert McClelland's support for ACL to criticisms of ACL?

Because it seemed out of place in the 'Support' section that contained only one sentence. Logically, any mention of support would follow an explanation of the organisation's policies, I would think. In it's current location, I think it provides a logical counterpoint to the criticisms. - MrX

3 Why did you remove Wallace's "orphaned" statement, which (as you know) was all that was left after all citations, background and explanations were crudely deleted, and while the matter is still under discussion and awaiting resolution?

It was an isolated, fringe statement that made no sense in its context. The section is about family issues, not a soapbox for spurious homophobic rants. - MrX

4 Why did you label the statement (at 3) as a, "spurious homophobic rant" when the head of the Kirby Institute also has expressed "concern" regarding the issue to which Wallace is referring?

Because in my opinion, that's what it is. "The homosexual lifestyle" is a fictional, dog whistle term used to brand people because of their immutable characteristics. "Disastrous health outcomes" is unscientific hyperbole and is not at all the same as "concern." If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized. - MrX

The Controversy and criticism section of the article contains Controversy and criticism of ACL. Hardly the place for Wallace's statement. There is already a para (conforming to Wiki P&Gs) criticising Wallace over this particular 'health' statement.

I agree. If it is to be included, it should be in the context of a larger issue pursued by the ACL. This is what I have attempted to address by suggesting that the article should be reorganized. Right now, it seems like good pitted against evil. - MrX

You say, "there does not seem to be an effort by the ACL to lobby to solve this perceived "disastrous health outcome" issue" Wow! - That is for others to do. Though it seems the 'effort' is primarily one of 'suppressing'. ACL is lobbying in support of man - woman marriage. I guess that lobbying coupled with the para above re monogamous homosexual and heterosexual sexual behavors - may be one response to your claim about 'no ACL effort' . Sam56mas (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have argued against including this statement, as WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:POV. I'm not sure why there is such anxiety about making sure this one statement remains in the article. Is it central to the subject? Is it a defining statement about the ACL? It seems to me to be an offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating. - MrX 05:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest it would not have mattered how delicately Wallace might have said what he said, or the basis for his words. I observe editor after editor valiantly trying to keep this out of the public domain, with each editor offering a different reason for (or no reason). BTW, why is Wallace's health comment an "offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating" while his tweet - re 'gay marriage and Islamic' is detailed with commentary and responses, in an L3 headed Section - Anzac Day 2011 ? You have said, "If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized". I am not sure what that means. Could you give me the form of words you have in mind. Sam56mas (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"I observe editor after editor valiantly trying to keep this out of the public domain, with each editor offering a different reason for (or no reason)."

And yet you insist on on repeatedly inserting this statement in spite of the tide of consensus against doing so. This would not be so alarming, but for the fact that for nearly six years this has been almost the only article you have edited. One wonders is you are some how associated with the subject, and if possibly you have a conflict of interest.

" BTW, why is Wallace's health comment an "offhanded remark that does not deserve repeating" while his tweet - re 'gay marriage and Islamic' is detailed with commentary and responses, in an L3 headed Section - Anzac Day 2011 ? "

That's a Red herring and please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

" "If this statement is to be included in this article, it must be properly contextualized". I am not sure what that means. Could you give me the form of words you have in mind."

It means that the context of the statement is important (was this part of speech? A response to a reporters question? Was he yelling it over a megaphone at a gay pride parade?) I decline to research and write this content for you, as I am not convinced that it benefits the article. - MrX 14:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection (again)

I've fully protected the article for 5 days. It was already protected once before earlier this month for a couple of days because of contentious edit-warring. It doesn't seem to have worked, so I've protected it for longer. Try harder to work out your differences.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Protection (third time)

I've locked the article yet again because the contributors to this page cannot seem to work out their differences without battling in the article. You have two weeks. If at the end of that time, edit-warring resumes, no matter who it is, I'll start handing out blocks without any notice except this one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I object to the repeated protection of this article. We have an escalating process for edit warring: warnings, community discussion, blocks. I think allowing these content issues to work themselves out while enforcing 3RR is a better way forward. - MrX 15:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You've also commented on my talk page. I disagree with you. This is a classic example warranting a full lock because there are multiple editors, not just two (or even one editor who is the only one on one "side"), disputing different issues. Waiting for a technical breach of 3RR would allow a great deal of disruption of the article to continue. If you wish, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP and note that you asked me to lift the protection, and I declined.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. - MrX 15:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)