Talk:1916 Australian conscription referendum

message: This should be re-named    Australian Referendum 1916.    Or more well known,   Australian Conscription Referendum of 1916.
The word plebiscite was not used in Australia for this vote.    If you check www.nla.gov.au  Trove website,  which contains digitised copies of Australian newspapers throughout the first half of the 20th century,   you will see 16,000+  references to "Conscription Referendum" in Australian newspapers.
If you search for "Conscription Plebiscite"   you will find extensive newspaper references to the Canadian conscription plebiscite of 1942  and you won't find any references at all to an Australian plebiscite of 1916.
The word "referendum" is used in Australia,  not only for approval of constitutional amendments,  but also for votes of this kind which are not constitutional amendments.   For example,  the vote around 1980 to decide on a new national anthem.    The word plebiscite is not used in Australia.Eregli bob (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Eregli bob above, as the writer of this article the plebiscite terminology is confusing in the article head because almost no one used that term at the time, and in parliamentary debates and in the government proposal it's almost always referred to as a referendum. It should be made clear in the article introduction though that it is technically not a referendum as referred to in the Australian Constitution, but a self-imposed referendum, and the term 'plebiscite' is now sometimes applied by contemporary sources because of this. --Unus Multorum (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

text: I:I I third this recommendation. The term used at the time, not just by the public and the media,but in the legislation itself and in parliamentary discussion about the event, was "Referendum".  The National Archives of Australia provide a useful factsheet about the referendums of 1916 and 1917, together with links to relevant documentation of the time. --Rod Hagen (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I think the page title you propose is quite suitable (the current title lacks the key "conscription" IMHO) so long as the article clearly explains the popular use of "referendum" for what was officially a "plebiscite". Ditto for the 1917 one. Kerry (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Article renamed "Australian referendum, 1916 (Conscription)" to reflect the consensus on the important words referendum & conscription & using the naming convention used in most other referendum articles Find bruce (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be renamed 

message: The question should be:
* probably listed under "Proposal", rather "Results"
* formatted better (not italics, maybe in  or one of the other such templates)
* explicitly stated to be the question ("the plebiscite asked the question: ...")
Mitch Ames (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, but the reason it was done that way was to remain consistent with the other articles on Australian referenda. Not sure if this is an agreed style for these pages or just convention.... Unus Multorum (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The question  

message: Dr. Mannix heavily swayed the vote in the Aus-Irish Catholics, to vote down the Plebiscite, simply because 16 people had been executed by the British Army - from the Easter Uprising. Without Dr. Mannix's push, the Plebiscite would have voted for a "YES", for pro-conscription. Yet, it remains properly untold.  — Preceding 
Wiki of Dr. Mannix
Government Letters regarding Mannix's intention or interaction with the 1916 affair.
unsigned comment added by Spanrz (talk • contribs) 11:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place for an "untold story" - see Wikipedia:No original research. Attribution of why a referendum went one way or another is often controversial - the article lists a range of other factors in the section Aftermath. It is especially controversial to attribute success or failure (depnding on your point of view) to an individual where it is reported he only spoke twice in the 1916 campaign (his oration at Richmond racecourse was for the 1917 plebiscite) and whose main influence was in Victoria, a state that voted slightly in favour of conscription. Even the attribution of motivation for an individual is problematic and adding this to the article would require the existence of reliable, published sources.  Find bruce (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure to include the Irish Executions of 1916 & Dr. Mannix's power play.