Talk:Australian House of Representatives moves to affirm support for heterosexual marriage
Add topicLatest comment: 18 years ago by Njaard in topic Blatant POV
 |
Original reporting
[edit]This article contains original reporting based on official transcripts of parliament (Hansards). Dysprosia 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Blatant POV
[edit]The name of this article is blatantly POV. - Lamkperson 12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've moved it. (support for heterosexual marriage -> support for heterosexuality of marriage) - Lamkperson 12:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing POV about "heterosexual marriage" as far as I can see; it is the direct analogy of "same-sex marriage". I can't see how moving it to "heterosexuality of marriage" makes any difference either. It would be best to keep the article at the shortest name. Dysprosia 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- I also don't see how the original title was POV. Also, can everyone please note that if you are going to rename an article, you must also fix any links or redirects to that article. The page that appears after you complete the rename explains how to do this. - Borofkin 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. Sorry, I'm sort of new and unaware of how things go. Anyway, my reasoning for how the title was POV is that they're not supporting heterosexual marriage without in any way affecting homosexual marriage, it's just the wording they use to weasel out of the fact that they're actually rejecting same sex marriage -- hence, supporting the heterosexuality of marriage. - Lamkperson 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- The motion said nothing about the support or otherwise of supporting same-sex marriage, hence "heterosexual marriage" is also correct and not POV. Dysprosia 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- What Lamkperson has said is true - the intention of the bill is clearly to reject same-sex marriage. However, it is not for Wikinews to make that interpretation. We are reporting on what happened, and placing it in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. It is up to our readers to make such interpretations. - Borofkin 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- No way dude! This is blatantly POV! It's complete nonsense to say that someone is "supporting" something by merely keeping it legal. The title should be "Austrialian House of Representatives moves to support heterosexual-only marriage" (this discussion is so stupid that I actually even made my wikinews account!) Njaard 22:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- What Lamkperson has said is true - the intention of the bill is clearly to reject same-sex marriage. However, it is not for Wikinews to make that interpretation. We are reporting on what happened, and placing it in the context of the same-sex marriage debate. It is up to our readers to make such interpretations. - Borofkin 23:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- The motion said nothing about the support or otherwise of supporting same-sex marriage, hence "heterosexual marriage" is also correct and not POV. Dysprosia 23:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. Sorry, I'm sort of new and unaware of how things go. Anyway, my reasoning for how the title was POV is that they're not supporting heterosexual marriage without in any way affecting homosexual marriage, it's just the wording they use to weasel out of the fact that they're actually rejecting same sex marriage -- hence, supporting the heterosexuality of marriage. - Lamkperson 10:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- I also don't see how the original title was POV. Also, can everyone please note that if you are going to rename an article, you must also fix any links or redirects to that article. The page that appears after you complete the rename explains how to do this. - Borofkin 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing POV about "heterosexual marriage" as far as I can see; it is the direct analogy of "same-sex marriage". I can't see how moving it to "heterosexuality of marriage" makes any difference either. It would be best to keep the article at the shortest name. Dysprosia 23:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)