Talk:Coalition for Marriage

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the fact that it is important due to the ongoing debate in British politics on same-sex marriage being allowed.. — 95.149.186.125 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

If you just go to Google and search in news for Coalition for Marraige you'll find a shed load of references from most major newspapers in the UK. I'm not going to put them in cause it's not my article but if anyone wants to it could save the page (Atraxus (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC))

I think it's important to keep this article. There's also a counter organization fighting for equal marriage named the "Coalition for equal marriage" too. Thanks Jenova20 19:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Section in main article "Suggested Link to the CMF"

I think the section has too much detail about the CMF, and some links appear incorrect. The only relevant information is that the CMF and the Coalition for Marriage share the same postal address (which I haven't checked) Damson88 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which links? And i'm only reporting on what the reference said, if you wish to counter it then provide reliable sources. The paragraph is tiny and to put the CMF in perspective without directing users to that page, as is common with mentioning organizations. Thanks Jenova20 11:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Damson88 here. It is not relevant that C4M share an address with CMF. They aren't the same organisation. I've tried to edit the piece, but merely get accused of engaging in an edit war with Jenova20. If somebody could make a judgment on this, that would be great. Crayfishvictoria (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It's two lines in a section about their links to Christian groups and sourced. It's directly relevant to the topic and under the correct heading of their founding. You got warned for edit warring (as did I) for edit warring and misuse of the minor edit tag, not for disagreeing with me. There is a difference and you should learn it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 13:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Crayfishvictoria is right here. CMF and C4M might share the same office, but information about CMF hardly becomes relevant because this is the case. As has been said, they are two different organisations. I would advise the two lines that Jenova20 refers to be removed. Maybe added to the CMF page instead? RackinRibs (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The section is just two lines and applicable to this article. Why add it to the CMF article to say they share the same address as the C4M? That puts that article in the same situation we have here. It's about the C4Ms address. IS there a specific reason neither of you wants it mentioned that they share an address? They have a lot of links to other Christian organizations and so it's clearly relevant and notable. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for Crayfish, but my view is no CMF reference is relevant here. They share a building. So do many other organisations. What I meant with regard to the CMF page is, why not add the controversy about them on their own page? (I haven't been over to the page to check whether that info is there yet or not.) RackinRibs (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it could be shortened to: "The coalition also shares the same address as the Christian Medical Fellowship, a pro-life group."

The bit about false religions is unnecessary. And the fact that they share a building is relevant and the removal just stinks of censorship from here. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. RackinRibs (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. But note that when C4M launched it announced itself as a coalition of groups. Did it name some or all of those groups? I know I've seen a little discussion in the sources about its funding. Such facts, if available, would be much preferable to this shared address bit. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest i'm not sure, i mostly only ever saw negative media attention towards them personally. The closest comparison is the C4EM and they launched with lots of public sponsors and a similar website layout. They list them on their site in plain view. Does the C4M do the same? Also since we have a consensus on wording i've readded the section with the false religion bit removed. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Images

I have taken two low-quality photos (the cover and the inside) of a C4M leaflet that was put through my door. I'd like to upload these images to this article. I believe that they fall within the Fair Use category since the photo itself is mine, and C4M itself distributed this political leaflet widely across the country, free of charge. The leaflet illustrates part of the 'Campaigning' discussion in the article and does not have any images included in it (other than one of the C4M logos) that could upset any individual. Could someone advise on whether they think these images would be appropriate to upload? I am keen to put them up, but do NOT want to be banned for breaking Wiki rules. Thanks! Wander Woman (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Migrating Jenova20's response to this from Wander Woman's Talk page, so everyone can see this answer:

According to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions it's not usable since the text and images on the leaflet are likely to be copyrighted. Thanks for trying though Wander Woman ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 19:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Wander Woman (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Public opinion

This entry should be about the ORGANIZATION called "Coalition for Marriage", not about the political struggle pro and con or public opinion on a given question, unless someone does a poll that asks: what do you think about the group that calls itself the Coalition for Marriage. That stuff belongs in Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So all polls should go? What about the Cranmer paragraph that was deleted? It shouldn't have been in the criticism section but has now been deleted entirely, despite being notable. Thanks for the input ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with public opinion so I will start a new heading. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sections

I have limited my work on this entry because I find the sectioning unworkable. Separating activities from coverage from criticism seems to frustrate any attempt at a narrative thread. Perhaps that's because I think as a historian, so I'd like to have chronological flow. Starting with "was founded in XXXX". Then get dates on everything.

"The C4M petition has been criticised by LGBT news service" when?

"The Women's Institute prevented the group advertising in its magazine" when?

Or consider:

"The CMF has has also attempted to link homosexuality and paedophilia on a site aimed at schoolchildren and uses evangelical views in the same context as scientific evidence and they have also been accused by Hindu leaders at the House of Lords Select Committee on Religious Offences of calling minority religions and Hinduism false religions." when? why are these items under ties to Christian groups rather than activities?

Using "press coverage" as a heading is just unworkable to me. We're trying to describe actions and positions and claims. Of course these things were covered in the press. The press coverage = the citations. What these actions etc are = the organization's work/history. It's C4M's work/history that's the subject of the entry. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

There's been two new editors for this article recently and i can't undo or revert two people for obvious reasons whenever a copyvio, censorship or contentious wording presents itself, nor would i like to. This makes my edits to this article short and few to avoid the inevitable and regular edit war that follows. Most of the stuff is cited, but i can't keep track of everything new. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 16:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Cranmer

I believe Jenova20 thinks this shouldn't have been deleted.

In May 2012, the coalition and religious blogger "Archbishop Cranmer" accused the Advertising Standards Agency of bias after the chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, who is himself openly gay, recorded and released a video for the Out4Marriage campaign, a campaign for marriage equality whereby supporters of same-sex marriage create and upload videos to YouTube and other video-sharing sites, affirming their support. "Cranmer" called on Lord Smith to resign from his post, while an ASA spokesperson refused to dismiss Smith, but did agree there was a conflict of interest and he would therefore not vote.

I don't see how this relates to C4M. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I must have misread. It's been busy here over the last 2 weeks. Delete away. I would like to ask what your opinion is of the text preceding citation 4 though? Is it really notable that people in "insert profession here" have signed it? That's the purpose of a petition right? And trivial information. I doubt anyone came to this article to see if a single lawyer or teacher signed it. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It's lame and uninteresting I'd say. The more important point would be that C4M used the petitions in 2 ways, to claim it was a mass movement based on big numbers and to claim that leaders/elites supported its efforts. And I'd expect to see some opposition asking where the other elites are: medical professionals and scientists, for example. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Leaflets

I've readded the section about The Huffington Post and the leaflets. The text in them was clearly controversial and whoever deleted it before also took all the references with it, which have been restored. It also had a misguided claim from the C4M which has been repeated a bit, but still unproven of "most gay people oppose the plans". It's baloney, it's false, and it's reliably sourced. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gathering signatures

How did the coalition gather signatures? We should include their statements of X thousand circulars mailed. I'm sure they placed ads but we don't say they did or where they appeared, only that WI rejected them.

Did C4M issue progress reports? Can we say that it said it had X thousand by (date) and X thousand by (later date)? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it's been reported in the news that not all of the signatures are genuine and that there's duplicates and under-age signees etc, and there was something in the news a while back about a decent portion being people who didn't even sign it, like someone else had put their names on. I think that accounted for a few thousand but i'd need to find a source. We have a lot of those criticisms in the article but there's more i saw reported which aren't in there. Google time i think ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So far:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

Source 4 is good. The C4M was claiming for months that the government would force religions to conduct marriages if they did not want to or the courts would. The C4M has never corrected that as far as i have seen. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You jump to criticism. I want to see what C4M claimed and when. Like:

• http://www.christiantoday.com/article/600000.people.sign.petition.opposing.gay.marriage/30648.htm 600,000 as of 13 Sept 2012

We already cover some criticism of the quality and true count of signatures and it is extremely unenlightening. One side makes a claim and the other side says not so fast.

Didn't anyone reject the very notion of a petition drive? Didn't an MP say "this is not a referendum" and "I can represent my constituents without this sort of thing. I don't need some advocacy group telling me what my constituents want." Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but they were largely ignored, just as in Scotland. In Scotland though, one MSP explained that excluding both sides' lobby group's letters the public were clearly in favour of a marriage bill. If anyone can find a reference to it then brilliant. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

"In the news" does not mean in Pink News. Let's go for some respectable national newspapers. RackinRibs (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

There are very few "respectable" mainstream UK newspapers. I'd go as far to say that anything from The Sun or Daily Mail be avoided completely since they cannot constitute a reliable and factual source. Unfortunately, they're probably the most likely to have made the grand claims that the C4M is saving the world or ending world hunger etc. I have some free time for Googling later. I'll see what i can dig up. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

How exclusively Christian?

Did C4M ever try to demonstrate that as a coalition it included non-Chistians? They seem to claim big numbers and elites, but I'd also expect any campaign like this to demonstrate breadth? No significant RC representation? The more conservative Jewish community? Didn't someone ask such religious leaders if they were part of or supported C4M's efforts? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they took any support they got and made it public if it benefited them, but just a few days back they complained that christians were ignored by the government and that minority religions got too much attention during the bills debate. They like media attention, it's free advertising. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 15:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Criticism

Criticism is not a thing in and of itself. We have criticism of the signatures so it belongs under the petition campaign. Breaking criticism apart as a generic category invites confusion. Saying who criticized what and when helps the reader understand the process. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Go for it ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 11:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coalition for Marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130827093731/http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/71364/coalition_for_marriage_bme_voters_tell_david_cameron_to_ditch_gay_marriage_plans.html to http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/71364/coalition_for_marriage_bme_voters_tell_david_cameron_to_ditch_gay_marriage_plans.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)