Talk:GetUp!

message: Now GetUp! claims on its website 589,261 members.  However that number has been static for the last month.  With two groups 'GetUp!' and 'Market for Change' lobbying against Harvey Norman, they could only motivate less than 9% of GetUp! members to sign their petition.  Is the GetUp! membership-number 'high' or GetUp! membership-activism 'low' ? Speedrailsm (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual you're going to need a reference commenting on the percentage of 'members' or whether activism is low etc, complaining about GetUp on their talk page is not going to accomplish anything by itself. Personally I think counting everyone who signs one of their petitions as a member is a rather low tactic; I have signed some GetUp petitions but some of their causes either don't interest me or seem counter-productive so I wouldn't consider myself to be a 'member', but personal feelings about this organisation are irrelevant. Freikorp (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  585,581+ members ??? 

message: There is no case to be made that GetUp! is not left-wing; it is associated with exclusively left-wing causes, and it is frequently described as such or similar. "Progressive" is a weasel word that is neither clearly defined nor in common use in Australia. For its part, the site calls itself politically "independent", a self-description Wikipedia can not, alone, ascribe the status of fact. I would suggest that "left-wing" is neutral in terms of its connotations and appropriate for use here; "socialist" or similar could be construed as a pejorative term. Joestella 13:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GetUp is left of the Liberal Party, and that isn't necessarily left wing unless you define the Liberal Party (The mass surveillance, paramilitary "BorderForce", use of abuse to get their own way, etc) as center or center-right. In which case you're arguing they're left in the Australian political system and not necessarily left wing on the political spectrum and that is two very different definitions which you aren't noting here or in the article. Keep in mind too that when they're accused of bias it's generally by The Australian or by Liberal-National Party politicians, neither of whom are impartial. Chrissd21 (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Left-wing or independent? 

message: My understanding is that mass emails are not taken seriously by politicians. Any strong linkage of GetUp's campaigns to the success or failure of particular pieces of legislation should be backed by sources - statements such as "GetUp campaigns were recognized as playing an important role" need to be substantiated. GetUp never works alone on causes, it generally works in parallel to (though independently of) the labour, environmental and other movements. Joestella 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that statements need to substantiated. To that end, I have removed claims about Senate power, media attention and spam. These had elements of subjectivism.--cj | talk 14:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign success 

message: Oddly, GetUp's website has removed references to at least one past campaign, concerning SnowyHydro's privatisation. It's one of the few in which the site could claim success. Any ideas on how to make the past campaign list more authoritative than GetUp's apparently faulty recollections? Joestella 04:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past campaigns 

message: Is a blog really notable enough to be referred to on Wikipedia? I think not... I propose deletion. WikiTownsvillian 03:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a wider point here about NPOV to be made (and I agree with the above removal). I think the conception of GetUp as a left-wing organisation is slightly misleading - they take up issues which the "wet"/centrist Liberals would have championed prior to the rise of Howard within the federal Liberal party. Many of the campaigns are in line with comments made in the public arena by Liberal MPs such as Mal Washer, Warren Entsch, Judi Moylan, Jeannie Ferris and Russell Broadbent, and National MP Barnaby Joyce. Many genuinely left wing issues are ignored or not addressed by Getup. Orderinchaos78 07:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticisms - Effectiveness

message: This is rubbish. GetUp! is not a far left lobby group - I am part of GetUp! and I would never have described myself as such. In fact, I would not describe any of the members of my branch as "far left". We conduct meetings and individuals say whatever they like and express their opinions; there is no "party line" like there would be in a political party. So this is just wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.52.12 (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, political position is made clear in the intro and body of article. Will remove "far left" description. Recurring dreams (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The centre-left claim is clearly without foundation, as well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, the far left claim has foundation, but is not adequately sourced to remain in the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far left lobby group? 

message: I have read the comments above and have added "Non-partisan" to the first para to make it clear to uninformed readers that Getup is not a political party. I also agree that it is not "leftist", certainly not "far left", and disagree that "progressive" is not current usage in Australia.  I am a very well-informed Australian.  Melba1 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If GetUp! supports left leaning causes, does this then not make GetUp! a left wing organisation? Although it is not sponsored by or affiliated to an individual political organisation, the main thrust of its campaigning has been for a left aligned social and political agenda. Ozdaren (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think in the light of their decision not to protest about the Malaysian Solution this article could do with some of the commentary from the media about how this doesn't quite gel with their stance on the Pacific Solution.70.189.210.160 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "Non-partisan"

message: The sections on the organisation's structure and goals are sourced only to the organisation's web site.  We need external sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we should change the tag to  (or ) for each section where it's accurate?  That's really the only problem I see.  If that's done, I have no objection to removal of .  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: cool,  is a good heading. :-) Halloleo (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement 

message: Claims about Getup membership could be viewed as misleading, but the tone of that section of the page is clearly and obviously prejudicial in nature. The intention of "Brandonfarris" in posting that section, and seemingly other deliberately negative edits elsewhere throughout the page, is very clear.
And again, the nature of the sources referenced is the most dubious thing about that section. As Nick-D said when he banned "Brandonfarris", the person responsible for posting that section, and the "Labor party front" section, and the "Spam" section, use of dubious negative material from people like Andrew Bolt isn't appropriate.
All of this material is clearly and intentionally negative, and it is part of the overall and transparently obvious agenda pursued by "Brandonfarris" around Wikipedia, as stated by Nick-D a little while ago on this person's talk page.
Andrew Bolt, Quadrant Magazine, and the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper, are not reliable or neutral sources. Which is part of the reason why we have a media inquiry taking place in Australia now.
Liberal MPs Malcolm Turnbull, Eric Abetz and Andrew Robb are certainly not reliable or neutral sources either. Their rhetoric does not constitute any sort of legitimate evidence.
And the assertions made about donations are false, which can easily been seen by anyone who views the Getup page on their website, which provides ample details of their donations.
Therefore, most of the material in those three sections should not be there.
Sam 3982 (talk) 09:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can hardly say that Getup's own website is an impartial source, now can you? We don't try to find completely neutral sources, that's not how NPOV operates. You should check out WP:NPOV - it's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. --Pete (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspiciously-sourced negative content posted by "Brandonfarris" on this page about Getup 

message: The tone of a certain unsigned and anonymous poster on this page, and use of offensive innuendos like "climate change alarmism", "anti Hanson claptrap", "pro open-floodgate "refugee" policy", and "platitudes sprouted by middle class dropouts & urban trendies.", rather gives away the fact that it is this poster whose opinions are a long way to the right, not Getup somehow being "far" to the left.
Here are some facts:
A Lowy Institute poll this year showed 81% of Australians support action on global warming.
A Galaxy poll this year showed 62% of Australians support same-sex marriage.
And it's safe to say the vast majority of Australians are also opposed to Pauline Hanson. Her failure to even win a NSW Legislative Council at the last state election there, speaks volumes in this regard.
Sam 3982 (talk) 10:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on your viewpoint. Just because a populace supports a measure doesn't mean it isn't left wing, the entirely populace could instead be in a state of mass delusion caused by communist false prophets here to steal our precious bodily fluids and redistribute wealth from those pitiful battlers like Rinehart; after all it's hard work being born into billions. :P And from that perspective it's still left wing. Obviously I disagree but that's the post Cold War world we live in. Chrissd21 (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moreover, supporting action about global warming, same sex marriage, and various other positions on which the majority of Australians agree with the Getup position, does not make an organisation "left-wing" or "far-left" either 

message: Getup have provided a page on their website which discloses donations made to the organisation. Thus, I have included this information on the page here.
Their disclosure page is at http://www.getup.org.au/about/disclosure
Sam 3982 (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure of donations by Getup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on GetUp!. 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://web.archive.org/web/20101212135038/http://news.ninemsn.com.au:80/national/8180400/getup-gets-behind-assange to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8180400/getup-gets-behind-assange
*Added  tag to http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/11/25/Possibly_the_Most_Beautiful_Ad_for_Marriage_Equality_Weve_Seen/
*Added  tag to http://m.samesame.com.au/features/8052/Every-float-every-group-Mardi-Gras-Parade-2012-revealed.htm?page=3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120605032451/http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com:80/marie-claire/features/campaigns/article/-/13830282/celebrate-your-right-to-say-i-do/ to http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/marie-claire/features/campaigns/article/-/13830282/celebrate-your-right-to-say-i-do/
*Added  tag to http://aap.newscentre.com.au/acf/120209/library/forests_and_marine/27842334.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Today there is a very interesting article in The Saturday Paper - labeled "exclusive" - which reveals that Malcolm Turnbull sought help from GetUp (though GetUp turned him down) to lobby Liberal party MPs to vote Turnbull into leadership over Abbott. The article has lots of other stuff of interest in it too, of even more relevance, which is not in the Wikipedia article. To be honest, the Wikipedia article is a bit sparse and there seems to be more content in the "Talk" page then in the Wikipedia Article itself! I hesitate to enter the information myself, as the climate on the Talk page seems a bit toxic and I'm not interested in wading into an edit war. For those braver than myself, here is the article https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/politics/2017/10/28/exclusive-turnbull-sought-getup-help-before-spill/15091092005412?utm_source=tsp_website&utm_campaign=social_desktop_copy_link&utm_medium=social_share Powertothepeople (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add info from this article: Turnbull sought help from GetUp 

message: An editor with ip  added a significant bit of text regarding a website critical of GetUp! apparently run by the Liberal Party.  I don't see any coverage of the website.  My concern is first that this is undue weight and second the addition says the website claims all sorts of things, but the website mostly attributes those claims to anonymous sources.  The editor has also removed text which reported the findings of the Australian Electoral Commission investigation. I am not Australian and have no understanding of the politics, but this looks like an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt on political opponents.  Since the IP editor has reverted my change, I will take it here before changing anything again.  Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance of Liberal Party Criticism website 

message: GetUp is currently in a fight with the Australian Muslim population by trying to pressure the Australian government to stop live sheep trade. This of course is unacceptable to muslims who only eat halal foods. Plenty of citations are available, should be included, as this is a breakaway from GetUp’s original constituency that was quite broad in appeal 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:7834:C7B:7EB8:A501 (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GetUp being Anti-Muslim 

message: Very bewildered at how describing them as an activist organisation, in addition to the already existing description of a lobbying organisation, could be removed. While we're at, surely they're more of an activist organisation since they mainly target the public rather than politicians. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Activist/lobbyist 

message: Replace 'left wing' with 'progressive', since this is what the given reference says: it does not say that Getup is left wing. To justify the use of 'left wing', a reference from a reliable, non-partisan source should be provided and it has no been. My source for this change is the one already given as reference 1:  Vromen, Ariadne. "New style lobbying: how GetUp! channels Australians' voices into politics". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 November 2016.Strayan (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ariadne Vromen is an academic who studies Australian parties and social movements posting on a reputable newspaper, so the source is fairly reliable. I agree that the source does not say GetUp is 'left wing', instead that it has 'Political leaning: Left'. Leaning could potentially refer to the page "centre-left", rather than the current redirect page "left-wing" which describes socialist and anarchist movements. However, the source never clarifies what it means by leaning. I think it should be removed until there is a source with a less ambiguous definition. Catiline52 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I take the term leaning to mean simply that, in the question of whether the organization leans right or left, it's to the left. The left wing  would contitute everything within the spectrum of the left side of politics. Centre-left would indicate an organization which splits its affiliation part of the time between the center and the left, which was not indicated in this case by the Vromen source. As far as which article to link the term progressive to, there is the section Progressivism#Contemporary mainstream political conception. Since Vromen uses the term progressive in her article, I would think that link might be the most appropriate one to use (I also think that because she also uses the term Left, that left-wing is also appropriate). Either term works. I do have to say that because  has not disclosed a conflict of interest, their use of the template in this case is not warranted (unless they indicate otherwise). If Strayan receives, or expects to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing. Please make this disclosure either here on the talk page, or on your own user page if this is the case. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  01:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request edit on 16 October 2019 

message: A million members? Really? Do these supposed members pay annual dues or are recorded in a roll or vote in annual general meetings? Or are they just the total of anyone who has ever signed one of their online petitions over the span of 17 years? --Pete (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership? 

message: The use of the exclamation mark after the name is inconsistent in the article and in the sources. I can't find a rule to follow for this - so hoping someone else can, or else just agree on one or the other. I know it's used in the logo and on their website, but it can look a bit odd if you want to use the possessive form. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of exclamation mark