Misplaced Pages

Talk:Family First Party: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:17, 1 October 2007 editTimeshift9 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers67,126 edits comment← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:09, 14 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,248,163 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Conservatism}}, {{WikiProject Environment}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(211 intermediate revisions by 59 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Australia|importance=mid|politics=yes|politics-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics | political-parties=yes| political-parties-importance=mid|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Environment|importance=low}}
}}


== Election candidate controversies ==
{{WP Australia|politics=yes|politics-importance=High|class=B}}


== Size of AoG == ===Andrew Quah===
Someone has deleted the Andrew Quah scandal from this article, twice! For those not familiar, the Family First candidate, Andrew Quah, stepped down amid scandal after nude photos of him appeared on gay websites around Australia. He also admitted that he looks at porn. This is vitally relevant, considering his party, Family First, is anti-porn as one of its main policies.
Does anyone know how big Assemblies of God is in Australia?
:"It currently consists of 1,012 churches with over 160,000 constituents, making it the largest Pentecostal movement in Australia." —] 09:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)


For those who want to see what was deleted from the article, here's the . Here's the , and for those who don't think it's notable, here's the of the ''Sydney Morning Herald'', and the Family First story is the #1 federal election story.<br />Other coverage at , , and , and even is covering it.--''']''' 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently over 190,000 souls that have been saved--] 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'm sick of having to repeat this.


:Kevin Rudd had his drinky drinky shenanigans, but the editors come to a consensus that it was irrelevant to his life and omitted it from his page. I believe they agreed to wait a month and see if the media still went on about it, as a test for its relevancy. The media did not, and nothing was put in.
== Paedophiles & 'community groups' ==
"However the community group Family First is most against is paedophiles. Their harshest words and policy are reserved for attacking this group's lifestyle choices."


:So the same should the FF article be treated. Every little bit of media controversy (I hate that word so much thanks to Misplaced Pages) does not deserve a paragraph, sentence or word on here. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I removed this para because it seemed superfluous. Pointing out that a political party is anti-paedophilia is about as necessary as noting that its candidates eat and breathe and want to be elected; only exceptions and/or details are worthy of note, and this didn't contain either.
::I'm not against the inclusion of Rudd / porn either. However, the Family First situation is very different, for three reasons. First, Rudd didn't resign or get expelled. Second, Family First's main platform is anti-porn, and here's one of their "anti-porn" candidates admitting he looks at porn, and appearing in porn himself. And third, this happened mid-way through the election campaign! If any candidate from any party is expelled or resigns amid scandal during an election campaign, then that is very big news and very notable. The fact that this guy was doing the activities he was campaigning against, makes it more notable.--''']''' 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with this, its certainly notable ] 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
::::I think the way you titled the heading, "porn scandal rocks Family First", gives away any notion of neutrality on your part. I'm sure there have been plenty of "scandals" (cringe), "controversies" (cringe) and the like throughout the histories of all the parties, but these have not been mentioned. This is a small incident which will be gone ''very'' soon. It is not a Labor split or the breakup of the conservatives. ] <sup>]</sup> 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


:::::Well should this content be perhaps added to ]? Surely the dumping of a candidate mid-campaign is fitting content for the "]" section of that article? --] 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If somebody has information on *specific* anti-paedophilia policies from FF, those would certainly be appropriate for this page. However, lumping paedophiles in with GLBT and non-Christian religions, both in terms of placement and in using language like "community groups" and "lifestyle choices" to describe the former, is likely to raise hackles - it would be more appropriate to present this in a separate section ("Policies", or "Anti-paedophilia policies" if there's enough to justify a full section).


::::::Quah had no chance of winning his seat though. FFP only has a chance in the senate. ''']''' ('']'') 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I've also renamed "Attitudes towards other community groups" to "Sexual and religious attitudes", since that seems a better descriptor of the section. --] 00:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Pretty useless tattle. And this coming from a guy that acutally blocked Andrew Quah's wikipedia account once. ''']''' ('']'') 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
: Perhaps instead include mention of certain of their policies and how those policies may arbitrarily affect certain spheres in order to address areas of FF's concern. Such as their anti-pornography policy, which includes acceptance of closing down most of Australia's ISPs in order to make Internet filtering more viable and thereby protect children (check their policy document for details). ] 08:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:I didn't know that Andrew Quah was a Wikipedian! I think that any candidate from any party that resigns in scandal mid-way through an election campaign is notable. For example, the John Howard article has commentary about all the campaign issues of each election, though I don't think there were any scandals like this. The nature of the scandal goes to the very heart of Family First.''']''' 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
: I added the bit about paedophiles, and structured that section the way it was. While the view that there's at least some measure of free will involved with all behaviours might not be popular with some, so is denying this (as Calair has done). It *is* important to point out that there are minority groups that Family First dislikes more than GLBTs, because otherwise it looks like they are their prime target. By focusing only on their "controversial policies", the party gets defined by it's difference from what one (or a collective) observer sees as the mainstream. Considering their relative lack of policies, it's easy to see what they're interested in - and that should be what decides the policies listed. And BenM, they would not close down the ISPs, they would simply make them comply. Look at Clear Channel in the US - conservatives over there haven't shut them down, just made them a lot more "clean". Commercial companies almost never make stands on moral issues, and especially not non-religious ones. ]
::{{User|Phanatical}}''']''' ('']'') 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


:Minor party drops minor candidate who had zero chance of winning a seat, to keep its image clean. Barely notable. If FF has kept him it might have been more notable. I notice a massive double standard here compared to Rudd, an incident which will be with him throughout his career. ] 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:: ''While the view that there's at least some measure of free will involved with all behaviours might not be popular with some, so is denying this (as Calair has done).''
:: I did no such thing. My reasons for deleting the description of paedophilia as a "lifestyle choice" are set out above, and I can't see anything in there in which I opined either way as to whether it *was* a choice. Please read more carefully before putting words in my mouth. --] 22:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


::It's an interesting argument that "he had no chance to win", therefore it doesn't matter. With Labor preferences now headed to the Greens, some commentators have said that none in Family First have much chance to win. Should we also stop writing about John Howard, because he hasn't got much chance to win (according to polls, anyway). The fact is that this guy, Andrew Quah, was standing for office. He was the Family First official who authorised all of Family First's 2007 election material, so to say he was a minor nobody is not correct.--''']''' 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:: On 'closing down' ISPs - the issue was not that FF wanted to shut down ISPs as such, but that the costs of complying with FF's proposed rules would drive most Australian ISPs out of business. (Filtering internet access being a vastly more complicated thing than keeping one's own programming 'clean'). --] 23:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
:::Only the local Sydney papers had photos (unlike Rudd). I bet this will lost even last 24 hours. AT least the Rudd thing was there in the morning, midday and evening news. Will this make the evening news? I doubt it. Probably some campaign rally will be on the newss tongiht. ''']''' ('']'') 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Again on the double standard: party leader gets drunk, goes to strip club, retains position, compared with candidate for unwinnable seat who poses nude and looks up porn. The leader of a party gets no mention (and rightly so) but for some reason the candidate gets several paragraphs. Bizarre. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::It is not notable in the long term. We should allow time for the ] to settle to gauge how this relates to the long term. Lester's short bus logic is also quite apparent yet again. He seems to think a party sacking someone for violating thier principles is somehow a "scandal". ] <sup> -(])</sup> 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


:I think that it would fall under qualified priviledge to reproduce this matter on the article. The people who have been mentioning the similaritiy with the Kevin Rudd Stripper scenario and the failure to reproduce that information on his article are missing the point that Family First runs on a platform of social conservative values. This (if it is true, for I didn't hear anything about it in the news) is a fundamental contradiction of their platform and values and warrants inclusion for that purpose alone. ] 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
==POV Issues with this article==
::Yes, which is why they sacked him, because they ddemed him to be out of line with their ethos. If they kept him it would be notable, or if he was a key figure in the party, then it would be notable, but he isn't. Do we also include the ALP candidate forO'Connor bagging Rudd in his university newspaper shock-jock column? No. ''']''' ('']'') 07:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::It would also be more notable if Mr Quah was harping on about the evil of porn, but since he is not, there is no hypocrisy on his part either (unless other stuff comes to light). ''']''' ('']'') 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::Good point. I am persuaded that it should not be included. ] 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
::::It would be a good point if the man in question was just a regular guy on the street who always wanted to be a porn star and suddenly got his wish. But not so. Andrew Quah was an anti-porn campaigner. He stood for office, not as an independent, but as a representative of the anti-porn party. Not only that, but Family First's anti-porn election campaign material, including leaflets and website, was signed and authorised by Andrew Quah. His name is at the bottom of Family First's material, and is the signing authority for submission to the Australian Electoral Commission. He authorised the FF anti-porn campaign. So, for Family First's campaign authoriser to be so heavily into porn himself is very significant. The amount of media coverage that the Andrew Quah saga has received so far is a reasonable percentage of the total media coverage that Family First has ever got. I'm against the notion that we should delay any mention of the Andrew Quah scandal for another month (ie. until after the election). Family First's election schedule should have no influence on the article.''']''' 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
:::::Lester has a point, by authorising those pamphlets Quah ''was'' harping on about the evils of porn. It's not like Rudd visiting the strip club because closing stip clubs is not a major election plank of the ALP. But ask yourself, if The Greens disendorsed a candidate they found to be a Gunns boardmember, wouldn't that be noteworthy? That's what we're dealing with here.
:::::However, we do need to understand that this will not remain an important event in the party's history. It will blow over and as such probably shouldn't remain on the party's page. So, '''I propose that this paragraph go on ] instead'''.Nick 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


::::::The problem I have with Lester's analysis - that Quah's position inside FF is significant - is that the major news reports (at least the ones I've seen) do not mention it, much less dwell on it. They simply call him a candidate and a member of the NSW executive. I will not object to a mention of it (that it happened, not of silly hyperbole like calling it a scandal). But really, what's this doing in an encyclopedia? Who will care in a week's time, let alone a few years? ] 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Family First according to its official website is not a religious or theocratic party, so the unsupported assertion that it is is POV. Family First's adversaries say it is a front for the Assemblies of God. This is a little like saying the ALP is a front for unions and the Liberal Party a front for business. They all draw support from various bases it doesn't make them the captive of any one group. I believe this article needs some radical surgery, I don't want to do it so I'll leave my thoughts here and hope someone can take it on. ] 00:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Only Lester and his inaccurate arguments will care. Lester seems determined to label this guy as "heavily" into porn and a hypocrite for advancing Family Firsts policies. As far as I can tell the FF policy seems to be related to access to porn for '''minors'''. The article and references even go as far to say that FF believe that adults have the right to opt out of their proposed blocking software. In other words FF advocate NO porn for the under 18's and freedom to view for those above 18. Is Andrew not an adult and above 18? Why is it hypocritical to advocate this FF policy while viewing porn? Lester also seems to homophobicaly throw the word "gay" around as if there is something wrong that. ] <sup> -(])</sup> 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
* 'Family First is a minor party', is it not a third party?


:To ], please read ] and think about that before accusing anyone of being "homophobic". It was the news articles on Andrew Quah that said his images were posted on gay websites. Nobody said there was anything wrong with being gay, or the websites.
: The meaning of ] varies from country to country; FF only fits some of those definitions, and no Australian definition is offered on that page. (I'm not sure there *is* a standard Australian usage - especially since, taken literally, the 'third party' would be the Nationals.) Unless and until that's sorted out, I don't think describing it as a "third party" would assist clarity. 'Minor party' is ambiguous - can mean either "insignificant" or just "smaller than the big guys" - but I think the rest of the article makes it clear that the intended meaning is the latter. --] 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:: Actually the third party would be the greens, who received 6.9% of the vote to the national's 5.9%. I'm not sure whether third or minor party is a fair term to use for any article though, since both are somewhat loaded in implying that the party is "unimportant". Especially since it rates parties on a particular election's votes received, and at least theoretically, any party could overtake one of the "major" parties at the next election, for all we know. Probably better to just state how many votes they got, and just let the reader infer from that what they will. ] 23:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
::: Fair 'nuff. I don't think it's such a loaded term (I'm happy to describe my own party of choice as 'minor'), but the rest of the article renders it unnecessary. --] 04:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::: I think it re-enforces the existing order of things. For exmaple my parents voted for Labor rather than the Greens this election because the Greens are seen as a "minor" party and therefore they didn't think they had any policies. While it may be true that the Greens currently have no hope of ''carrying out'' their policies, that's always going to be the case so long as they're categorised as a "minor" party and therefore not voted for by people who would otherwise support them. ] 00:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
: We may want to use the classification of party size provided with the ] page. This would make FF "medium" rather than minor on account of holding office, but not Government. ] 05:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:Here is
* 'Receives its support from various Christian groups', it received hundreds of thousands of votes so presumably support is broader than that.
**How do you say that.. 70% of the Australian population is Christian and 2% voted for Family First. Certainly their major support is from Christian groups - ] 07:50, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
*** 70% of Australians say their Christian for the census. About 20% turn up to church at least once a month. According to the National Church Life Survey, an even smaller percentage believe in all the main Christian beliefs.


:Family First is a minor party, so some may argue that everything to do with FF is minor news. However, in the scale of Family First events, the Andrew Quah incident is the biggest news event the party has ever had in its history. From to to the . It's the most widespread coverage that Family First has ever received on any issue.--''']''' 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
* 'Main support in SA', received most votes in Qld.


::"Biggest ever"? You're not in SA or Vic I assume, where FF actually have elected members and are in serious news stories from time to time. I can imagine them not really being on the radar in other states. As for the international coverage, well so did the Kevin Rudd earwax story. Doesn't make it significant. (Which doesn't mean I'd oppose a brief mention, as I've said above). ] 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: It depends, I guess, on how you define "main support." Number of votes isn't necessarily the best indicator because support can also indicate financial, volunteer and membership factors. ] 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:::Hi Peter. Well, in terms of widespread international coverage, I think it's the biggest story involving Family First. I note that the ] entry carries mention of the ] Vs ] drunken scuffle, and it's mentioned again on both Bartlett & Ferris' biography pages. People are not only interested in the incident, but also how the party deals with the one involved. In Bartlett's case, they let him stay on, despite very damaging video of him shaking Ferris.--''']''' 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
* Inference of Liberal support. Family First did deal with Labor in Tasmania and Victoria. In fact Labor's preferences elected both FF candidates.


::::Bartlett was the leader of a party which at the time held the balance of power in the Senate with 8 senators. FFP has one senator who does not have the balance of power and is relevant only when BArnaby Joyce refuses to tow the line. Bartlett's act was done on a national stage in the senate, attacking another senator. Moreover, Quah is not even in the top 10 FFP public figures. What Quah does in his own time is not so important as public behaviour, and secondly he didnt infringe on anybody else by stripping off either. The video of bartlett was on the news on TV and newspapers - did you see Quah's groin on TV ??? ''']''' ('']'') 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: What inference? The only mention of the Liberal Party in that section is the observation that in ''one specific seat'' - Makin - FF's preferences helped the Liberals win. Looking at the AEC results , this is verifiable fact. FF took ~5% of the primary vote in Makin, they preferenced Liberals, and the Liberals ended up winning with a two-party preferred margin of less than 2%. This is a comment on a specific seat, noting that FF's preferences played a crucial role in the outcome.
:::::Does The Chaser count? Because they showed much more than I wanted to see. Nick 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::OH, . . .. .. I didn't know that, but Chaser isn't really serious stuff is it? ''']''' ('']'') 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


I really don't care about this either way (as can be noticed by my lack of contributions on this subject) but it is interesting to note, that only once he was forced out of the FFP, did the conservative wikipedians then, and only then, acknowledge, that if he remained in the FFP, it would have been a different story. Funny how that point wasn't raised when he was in the FFP. Just an observation. ] 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: I did, much further down, note that FF directed their preferences in favour of the Coalition over Labor, with specific exceptions for Ingrid Tall and Warren Entsch. If you can tell me specific seats in which FF preferenced the ALP ahead of the Coalition, I'm quite willing to verify those and correct accordingly.--] 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:eh? By the time the story broke, he had already been kicked out, so how could we have possibly raised the point earlier? ] 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
* 'Theocratic.' FF's website does not mention God or religion once.


::Indeed. My point stands though. I'm sure if he was still in the party, the 'but he's not in the party' line anymore wouldn't be used. But that's already too many words for a subject I have no particular interest in. ] 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
: Agreed (edit: on inappropriateness of 'theocratic' classification, that is); while FF's religious connections are significant, they don't really fit the definition given under ].--] 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


===Ben Jacobsen===
: BTW... "does not mention God or religion once"? The search box on their page says otherwise - for instance, Andrew Evans' on a bill to allow euthanasia: "For those who do not believe in God, this argument of mine will have little impact, but for those who believe in a divine being let me say that this great God of love and compassion is also a God who has boundar­ies... Out of his love for mankind he has set boundaries and these boundaries have been accepted by the world as a foundation for the laws of every country. God's boundaries are the 10 commandments. The seventh com­mandment states, `Thou shalt not murder.' The exception to that commandment was presented clearly in the Bible, namely, in times of war and self defence."
I can't believe there's another one! University lecturer Ben Jacobsen, after attacking the sexuality of his Liberal rival, later apologised after he admitted to downloading porn. . If this keeps going, we'll have to turn it into a list!--''']''' 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: And : "...the National Day of Thanksgiving is different from Australia Daythe former being a chance to publicly celebrate our faith, and the latter being a celebration of our nationhood. The National Day of Thanksgiving has come about as a result of numbers of individuals and organisations making repeated calls for a national day to give every Australian the oppor­tunity to express gratitude of and give thanks to God and to others... In 1988, 50 000 Christians from all over Australia travelled to Canberra to dedicate Australia and the new Parliament House to God and prayer. This was followed by prayer and fasting events in 1996 and 1998 convened by Praise Corroboree; and then finally, in 1998, about 30 000 Christians gathered for an all night prayer vigil at Parliament House in Canberra to pray for the nation. In 2004, Australia 's most significant prayer organisation, the Australian Prayer Network, put forward for comment the concept of the National Day of Thanksgiving to various organisations. The idea quickly gained support, including from the National Prayer Council."
: --] 11:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:...5 years ago. ] 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
* 'Candidates from one church' Many ALP candidates are union officials, doesn't make the ALP a union only party. ALP's relationship with unions is complicated, as illustrated by the CFMEU Forestry's opposition to Latham's forestry policy.


::It depends on which part of the article is the most relevant part. According to the article, Family First's Ben Jacobsen "attacked" his opposing candidate over her sexuality, very recently. I think many people would be interested to know this. As for the porn, Jacobsen apparently gave up his online porno downloading 5 years ago, but only admitted his previous porn usage a few days ago. The article says FF campaigns on an anti-porn platform. Cheers,--''']''' 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
: However, ] notes right at the start that the ALP "is so-named because of its origins in and close links to the trade union movement". The ALP has close union connections, Family First has close church connections; neither of these completely define these parties, but both are worthy of mention. --] 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:::Scores strip club 5 years ago, earwax 10 years ago. Point being? (I'm not advocating inclusion, just pointing out the mixed messages being received...) ] (]) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And these observations are just from the first two paras. ] 00:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


::::I think it's vitally important that Ben Jacobsen's digressions be included in the article. Particularly his attack on a political opponent over the issue of sexuality. I think there are many people in the community who would be interested to know this, and it would definitely affect whether or not they vote for him.--''']''' 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Do you '''seriously''' believe that WP will determine whether people will vote for Ben Jacobsen? ] (]) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


::::::No, I don't think the Wiki article will affect voting. I was referring to the behaviour or Mr Jacobsen, which was covered widely in the news media. Regards, ''']''' 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
''In a
, Andrew Evans said he stood for "Families, and family values." When asked to define what a family was, he said "Mums and Dads, Grandpas and Grandmas, boys and girls, heterosexual, and singles." This appears to say that Family First is for everyone except non-heterosexual adults.''


:::::::His attack was quite bizarre, but nevertheless I think it's borderline for noteworthiness. (There are loose cannons in all parties, especially when it comes to minor party people). I won't object if it's written up neutrally. ] (]) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Does this last sentence serve any useful purpose? I'm not sure we need to tell people how to interpret quotes; if they're unambiguous the reader doesn't need our help, and if they're ambiguous we shouldn't be steering them towards one particular interpretation, unless we have some background knowledge the reader lacks - and the rest of this section provides ample background on this point. --] 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


===New section proposed : 2007 federal election===
==Another POV Issue==
This article does need appropriate mention of the above-mentioned candidate controversies. They are notable events because of the contradiction of official party policy that they represent. I think they might be best included in a section titled "2007 federal election" which would also detail the chronology of notable actions, policy releases and so on. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Sexual and religious attitudes":
:I agree to a section to encompass these events. There was previously a section called ''Controversy'', which is pretty common in Wiki articles..--''']''' 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
:''According to a Radio National interview with Andrew Evans, Family First stands for "families, and family values". He defined families as being "Mums and Dads, Grandpas and Grandmas, boys and girls, heterosexual, and singles." When taken in conjunction with the common Christian belief that homosexual thoughts are just another temptation, while homosexual actions are a sin, this statement can be seen as saying the only people they don't represent are practicing homosexuals. '''How the Family First party reconcile the fact that some homosexuals are parents or grandparents of children through previous heterosexual relationships is unclear.'''''
imho, that last sentence that I have put in bold is pure POV editorialising. I removed it previously , but ] added it back in , so, rather than delete it again, I throw it open to you all: is it an appropriate comment for a Misplaced Pages article? &mdash;] 04:42, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
*I think it sould probably go - its commentary--] 05:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


::I don't see Controversy sections as the better way to write encyclopedic content. Among other things, they present risks of undue ] and article bias. Wherever possible and reasonable, these should be avoided in favour of incorporating such material into the broader context, narrative and chronology of the article. For example, these events are particularly notable because they relate to election candidates during a campaign. If they had just been ordinary FF members, outside of an election campaign, there wouldn't be much worth including her. In short, we need to contextualise issues neutrally and appropriately, avoiding sensationalism. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
: I also think it should go - and the sentence before it, too. ("When taken in conjunction with the common Christian belief...") That one amounts to "Evans' party believes A, people of Evans' faith commonly believe B, therefore we can put A & B together to deduce that his party believes C." Even if this didn't involve the assumption that Evans' party and Evans' faith are of one mind (which is, as we've seen, a matter of argument), this is poor logic; just because we believe C is a natural consequence of somebody's beliefs doesn't mean *they* share that belief.
: "How the Family First party reconcile... is unclear" reads more like a thinly-veiled stab at the party - "these guys are too dim to realise that some homosexuals have kids" - than an informative statement. May not have been the original poster's intent, but that's how it looked to me.
: Frankly, IMHO, Evans' quote makes things pretty clear; the two following paras don't really add much to a reader's knowledge about FF. --] 06:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


===Sterilisation v. Sensationalism===
:Misplaced Pages guidelines aew quite clear to me: When I'm told to both ] and ], I feel that the statement must be there. If that makes readers think Family First appears stupid, then so be it - it's not my fault they have an incoherant policy full of logical inconsistencies that they have to the best of my knowledge not even attempted to explain.
It is clear that there are pro- and anti-FF elements each trying to impose their own bias on this article. Quite predictable and understandable. My 2 cents: '''1)''' Can't say that I'm a huge fan of "Controversy" sections myself, and I would tend to agree with Brendan's comments above. '''2)''' I believe the issues discussed above (particularly Andrew Quah) should be mentioned ''somewhere'' in the article, but there is no need to be sensationalist about it. The behaviour of particular FF candidates during the election was relevant and newsworthy at the time, and I consider it to be noteworthy now. '''3)''' "Nobody will care in ..." I regard this sort of argument to be... well, it's not really an argument at all, is it? It's an individual opinion, and even if it turned out to be true it's hardly relevant now - the same could be said of just about anything. "In a few years time nobody will care about this year's Olympic Games, so we should not mention them. At all." '''4)''' Anecdotally, the Andrew Quah incident is one of the few things I actually remember about FF's campaign. That and someone else from the party telling a lesbian she was a witch who should be burned??? (Memory a bit hazy over details of that one.) '''5)''' A suggestion for wording re Andrew Quah: "During the 2007 election campaign it was revealed that nude photos of Family First candidate Andrew Quah had been posted on the Internet. Quah also admitted to viewing pornography online, despite authorising the party's anti-pornography election material. He was subsequently expelled from the party." ] (]) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


:As I think I said above, a neutrally written note on Andrew Quah (or on the "burn the lesbians" idiot) is OK, and what you suggest is fine. ] (]) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
:I also find it wrong that it has been removed pending discussion. Why not leave it pending discussion? As far as I see it, the onus is on you to discuss your potential change (ie removing it) before doing so, not remove it then tell me I should come to the talk page if I want it back. For that reason, I'm replacing it, and I expect it to stay until this is resolved. ] 10:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


::OK, I have added this to the 2007 election section. Haven't yet found a solid reference to his authorisation of election material, though...? ] (]) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
:: I agree with Calare, the last two sentences are needless editorialising of the issue and are POV. My sentence would read "''Critics'' of Family First claim that this definition infers that the only people that Family First does not represent are gay and lesbian people." Critics is of course replaced with a source, otherwise its a weasel comment. Note that "homosexual" is derogotory when used to describe people.. - ] 11:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


:: ...and now it's gone again. Blnguyen - care to justify your revert? Point to policy or guideline? (I would, of course, have been happy to leave out the un-cited part about him authorising election material...) ] (]) 08:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
::Can you explain what purpose that sentence serves other than to take a swipe at Family First? Andrew Evans spelled out his definition of families in an interview. You've combined that definition with a "common Christian belief" (even though, as the article makes clear, FF flat out claim not to be a Christian party) to come to the (admitted reasonable) conclusion that FF do not represent homosexuals. But then, trumpeting this in a "they're so stupid! they say they stand for mums and dads, but some homosexuals are mums and dads too!" fashion is not even remotely encyclopedic.


==References v External Links==
::FF also take a strong stance against child abuse and child pornography: do you think there a logical gap there that they need to reconcile? After all, many pornographers are mums and dads, and many of them are heterosexual, too!
I removed these from the External Links section per ]. They may prove more useful as '''references''' for article content. Feel free to add more. This article needs more references and content. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
*
*, ], 16 October 2004
*'''Article'''. , Jana Wendt, Sunday Program, Nine Network, ] ]
*'''Transcript'''. , Jana Wendt, Sunday Program, Nine Network, 2005-07-03.
*'''Blog posting'''. . Assemblies of God church member Nathan Zamprogno's record of interview with Jana Wendt, 2005-07-04.
*'''Blog posting'''. , Nathan Zamprogno, 2007-07-24.
*'''Blog of media articles'''. . Anonymous, unofficial. Last updated October 2006.


::I'm sorry you're offended at me removing it again before you weighed in on the discussion. But given that a couple of others had already agreed that it was out of order, I felt that the encyclopedia was left in a better state by its absence.


Peter Ballard, I note you the to External Links. Misplaced Pages is not a ]. ] calls for minimalism and, in section ], says to exclude "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". The blog is anonymous, not an official blog of the party and appears to have not been updated since October 2006. The link should remain here on the talkpage (added above), so editors may access that blog to obtain the articles linked there as references for expanded content in this Wiki article, while keeping the article well within ] and ]. --''']''' <span style="font-size:80%">] ]</span> 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::p.s. I honestly have no idea what either the ] or ] policies have to do with this. &mdash;] 11:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


:Blogs are "links '''normally''' to be avoided" (my emphasis). This particular blog is an apparently neutral and uncommented collection of news articles, and as such I thought it improved the article, and so deserved inclusion on the basis of ]. However, since it hasn't been updated for a year, it's not as useful anymore and I don't mind dropping it. (I quickly checked, saw "October", and just assumed it was "October 2007"). ] 09:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::: '''I''' have not combined it with common Christian belief. That statement was there to begin with, I just reformatted the sentence to make it read better, without (I hope!) changing the meaning. I only let it stay because I felt removing it was a bigger risk to the neutrality of the article (and perhaps an edit war) than leaving it, since I'd already removed similar (but very poorly formatted) material earlier.


===Policy references===
::: The appropriateness of the guidelines is as such:
I don't see the problem with "sources affiliated with the subject of this article" when we're talking about the policies of a political party taken from that party's site? ] (]) 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


==Election Results section==
::: State to obvious: "Establish significances, large implications & why we should care". I feel that the inherent contradiction and assumptions are significant, and that wikipedia guidelines state that they be pointed out.
Someone added a very very long section about election results over the years. It seems to be creeping higher to the top of the article each time I see it. At the very least, it should be at the bottom of the article (if it should be there at all). At the moment, it is just serving to push more relevant information about what the party stands for out of view.''']''' 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
:I propose that the Election Results section be deleted. Election results are covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, and are superfluous and distracting in this article.--''']''' 02:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


::Certainly a history section is important, and election results are a big part of that history. I don't think FF results are easily found elsewhere, and this page is as good a place as any to summarise them. Perhaps there's a little much detail, but in general I think it should stay, perhaps renamed as "history". ] 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
::: Make ommissions explicit: "But if for some reason you can't cover a point that should be covered, make that omission explicit." I can't explain how they deal with the contradiction, so I am explicitly stating that how they deal with it is unclear.


== Reverted? ==
::: Additionally, I feel that the reason for removal seems to be that it makes Family First look bad. In my view, removing factual and relevant material, which is not only allowed but ''demanded'' by the editing guidelines, because it might make the subject of a page look bad is obviously not in accordance with the NPOV policy.


Senator ] stated in the lead-up to the ] that a Labor-Greens Senate would deliver "drug shooting galleries in your street".<ref></ref>
::: In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have re-added the material to the page, and I appologise for that. It was a bit of tit-for-tating that I engaged in because I felt wronged by the removal despite reinstating it and stating my reasons for doing so. I will remove it until this can be resolved, as I have to admit it doesn't look like I'm going to have majority support on this one.


Do we not comment on what Senators say anymore? ] (]) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::: Basically my position is that I believe the guidelines say that the sentence I added should be there. If you can find stronger evidence from the guidelines it should not be there, I'll gladly drop my protest. I don't like parts of the guidelines much myself, but in this situation, what else do we have to go on? ] 12:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
:It was in a section titled "Policies". That quote doesn't sound like a policy statement to me. Nick 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
::It was under the section of drugs. Where do you propose it does fit then? Or is that the key here, the page has been designed as such that controversial things like this have no current place in the article... ] (]) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


:::Fielding's comment was a pretty outlandish statement that misrepresents his political opponents, though I would support its inclusion in the article. However, I think it should say "Senator ] '''''claimed''''' that...". It's a pity that most of the controversy has been cleaned from this article.--''']''' 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: My reason for disliking it isn't that it makes FF look bad... but that it feels as if it was added *solely* to make FF look bad. Even if that wasn't your intention, it gives the article a POV feel.
::The drugs section is under the policies heading, so it should be about drug policies. You could try starting a new section, something like "Criticisms of other parties' policies". It could be controversial but not entirely inappropriate (after all, new parties only arise because they perceive flaws in the existing parties). Nick 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: I could equally well post "Evans has publicly opposed euthanasia, a stance which requires thousands of Australians to die slow and painful deaths." It's perfectly *true*, and AFAICT the arguments you've presented could equally well be applied to justifying this sentence. But something can be true, and still be POV. (BTW, Evans'/FF's stance on euthanasia would certainly be appropriate for this article - just not the editorialising that follows.)
:::And I wonder how long that section would last? ;-) ] (]) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::: IMHO, the problem's less with the observation itself than with the tone of it. IME, when somebody says "how A reconciles X with Y is unclear", it's usually understood as a snide way of saying "A is an idiot, because he hasn't reconciled X with Y, because he CAN'T". Something like "Family First have not indicated whether they acknowledge gays with children as a legitimate form of family" expresses the same fact, but feels more neutral to me - would that be an acceptable compromise? --] 23:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
::::If it didn't last, it would be because that particular quote misrepresents the other parties' policies and uses emotive language. ("In your street", wtf is that?)
::::But I think a section on FF vs Greens would be ok if it could be couched in neutral language. cf ]. Nick 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's the quote. Fielding stated that a Labor-Greens senate would "deliver drug shooting galleries in your street". I agree with wtf, it's a very strange comment indeed. ] (]) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


:::Nick, by the same reasoning, everything belongs in "criticism of other parties". Drug's policy is as good as any place to put Fielding's comment. I don't care either way if it goes in. ] (]) 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: That sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm usually happy for people to reword things to make them clearer or fairer (so long as they don't butcher the intent). What I objected to was removing the thing entirely.


::::Maybe it needs a 'Controversy' heading, which existed once before in an earlier version of this article, but was later deleted. Under that heading, you could include all those things that have trouble fitting elsewhere. I mean, what's the use of a Misplaced Pages article if it can only state party policy? We may as well go to the Family First website to get that.''']''' 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: As a side note, I'm not sure I agree that it's wrong to put something in an article, even if its sole intent is to make someone look stupid. So long as you present the stupidity in an impartial way, it's OK with me. Some things are just impossible to write about without making the subject look stupid (how can you write about Pauline Hanson's response to "Are you Xenophobic?" without making her look like a moron, for example?) To my way of thinking, if people don't want to be made to look stupid, they should stop saying stupid things. ] 00:02, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


:::::I agree there is too much regurgitating of party policy, I just think a "Controversy" section is the wrong way to do it. So on each section under policy, put what they've actually done, and where that has been controverial or notworthy, rather than just (sometimes outdated) references to FF policy . ] (]) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
::::: Compromise works for me, too. I'm perfectly happy for this article to make Family First look bad, as long as it doesn't make ''Misplaced Pages'' look bad. :-) e.g. the paragraph I added a while back about FF denying being a Christian party.. even though Andrew Evans was the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God in Australia for twenty years and a large number of their candidates are pastors or members of Assemblies of God churches - I hope that ''did'' make them look bad. But, as Calair said, there was just something about the ''tone'' of that sentence that rubbed me up the wrong way. It didn't read like an encyclopedic presentation of facts. It read like a swipe. The policy of Misplaced Pages is that if people say stupid things, we report them, and let the reader say "wow, that's stupid". We don't help them along. That's why the article on ] doesn't say that he was a bad person - when the facts are presented, you don't need to say it. &mdash;] 00:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


::::::It should be about views and actions, not just actions. ] (]) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
== POV in Similar Parties heading ==


:::::::True. I was thinking of Industrial Relations, where what they've said is pretty vague, so IMHO it's better to note how Fielding voted on WorkChoices. On some other issues, their views are pretty clear. ] (]) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Christian Democratic Party has existed under various names since 1974, and was Australia's dominant Christian party for most of that time. It espouses policies very similar to those of Family First, and in the 2004 election the two parties directed preferences to one another.


{{reflist-talk}}
Despite these similarities, the CDP has never had anywhere near the level of support Family First has managed to attract within a few years of its emergence. One possible reason for this is an Australian reluctance to mingle religion and politics; where Family First have striven to present themselves as a secular party, the CDP emphasises their Christian beliefs, and their leader Fred Nile is an ordained minister.


== Noteable? ==
The other Christian party of note is the Democratic Labor Party, a Catholic party based in Melbourne. Also known as "the Movement", it was once Australia's fourth largest party, but now has minimal support. It was founded in 1954, and its collapse in the 1970s prompted the founding of the CDP. While it still does moderately well in Victorian senate polling, it is no longer a significant influence on national politics."


in 2004. This is a lower level than policy as it is an exclusion of preferencing a Liberal MP based on sexuality, but will swap preferences with a Liberal MP who publicly confessed to an affair while his wife was pregnant with twins. ] (]) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Family First is not (technically.. according to them) Christian, so its POV to slump them with the CDP and DLP in this way without an explanation. - ] 11:43, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


== Christianity template ==
: Maybe its being trite to say this, but ]. Just because they say they're not a religious party doesn't mean they're not a religious party. If John Howard came out and said the Liberal party is not a conservative party, should we just change the wiki page for the Liberals on his word? ] 12:43, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


I came across template, and as FFP was in it I was going to add it, but then realised some may have issues, so i'm querying here first. ] (]) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
:: Both are good points. I think, though, that a section listing similar parties should focus on similarities between FF policies and corresponding policies of other parties and groups. The problem with drawing links between, for example, FF and Christian groups is when you start finding links between them and other more contraversial groups (e.g. the Nazi revisionists which ] met with in ]). Much better to lay the dry facts out regarding their policies here, the Christian links have been covered in the first section of the article. --] 15:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:No comments, added. ] (]) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem appropriate to me. ] (]) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
:It takes more than that to defend a revert. Please give rational reasons why you chose to revert after there was no protest to the proposal added nine days ago? ] (]) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
::I would say that, going by the press release quoted in the "Religious affiliation" section of this article, that if Family First is not officially affilated with any Christian church, it's probably not appropriate that it be on that template, or that that template be on this article. It's basically promoting the POV that religion is the most significant aspect of the party - a POV that I happen to largely agree with, but which I don't think is appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. --] (]) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
:::See my comments at ]. That's where I think it should be thrashed out - let's determine first if it belongs in the Template. ] (]) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


== WA Family First Party ==
::: Agreed, but differences should also be highlighted - it's useful for a reader to understand why FF might have more appeal than the CDP, for instance. Noting differences here also goes a long way to reducing potential POV problems caused by both 'similar parties' being overtly religious. --] 23:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Interesting that the WA Family First Party has recently been formed. Also that it is an alliance between ex Liberal Party and ex One Nation officials ().--''']''' 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The DLP has always denied being a Catholic party, by the way. The only party which is ''overtly'' Christian is Nile's CDP, which is probably one reason why it has always polled so poorly. ] 00:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:Perhaps I'm missing something but as far as I can see their only MP is ex Liberal ]. ] (]) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
: Or it could be Fred Nile himself that causes it to poll so poorly. ] 04:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)


== Convergence to format of Liberal Party of Australia format ==
Without wanting to be too partisan, Nile is widely regarded in both political and church circles as decent but an old fool. ] 05:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


If anybody opposses doing so, please state your comments here (or if they believe the Liberal Party should have their policies stated on the page).-] (]) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any outstanding POV issues now, or can we remove the tag? --] 04:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


:You mean by deleting all the policy section? I think a better model is the ] article, which does define policy (though in less detail than here). Small parties like Greens and FF tend to be easier to define by policy than the major parties, so it's more appropriate to put policy on their WP pages. (Usual disclaimer: I'm a FF member). ] (]) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


If there are particular features on the Lib page that you'd like on the FFP page, please state what so it can be discussed. Suggesting a blanket change won't get very far. ] (]) 13:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
==Repetition (and missing reference?) ==


== Recent activity ==
From the '2004 Election' section:


As a FF member I'm trying my hardest to avoid editing this article, but I think the latest round of anon edits should be blanket reverted, because there's too much silliness mixed in with what might be useful. Looking at the diffs since 5-Aug, I see several "what the" edits:
''The party agreed to share House of Representatives preferences with the Liberal-National Coalition at the 2004 election (http://www.familyfirst.org.au/mr/fullpref240904.pdf) (except the seats of Brisbane and Leichhardt because Ingrid Tall (Liberal candidate for Brisbane) is a lesbian, and Warren Entsch (Liberal for Leichhardt) supports gay marriage).''
* All sorts of strange stuff in the policial ideaology box, including ] (who isn't) and ] (not an FF policy);
::I've read the attached PDF. It doesn't seem to make the assertion above. It may be a reasonable assumption, but shouldn't the article reflect that? (unless there is another reference that supports this reason), eg. wording should be something like "... Brisbane and Leichhardt, presumably because ..."?
* The ] cat has been added (highly contentious);
:::You're right, the PDF was only intended to document what the preferences were, and the ''reasons'' given for those preferences should've been referenced too (fixed now). The one for Entsch isn't as strong as I'd like (SMH article gives that as the reason FF preferenced against him, but don't attribute this explanation to anybody). But it's certainly in keeping with their stated reasons for preferencing against Tall, so I doubt it'll cause too much controversy. --] 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
* "See also" Liberal Party (what the?);
* "See also" US Republican party, a "conservative Christian party" (what the?);
* an uncited and dubious list of "key persons", both in the lead and in the article body.
Please revert the lot, someone. ] (]) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)<br />
I've reverted some recent edits that were not supported by the cited references and cleaned up some other links. ] (]) 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)<br />
Re Fiscal conservatism, the national leader Bob Day contends that 'someone has undone the reference to Family First being economically conservative. If low taxes, free markets and property rights aren’t examples of economic conservatism I don’t know what is. Our Tax Policy, Employment Policy and Small Business Policy all point to economic conservatism. The Chairman of Family First (me) is a Member of the internationally renowned Mont Pelerin Society a pillar of economic conservatism.' - Can the ref be left alone please ] (]) 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


== Ultra-Conservative Description ==
From the 'Gay Rights' section:


FF certainly has conservative policies, some of which can be described as 'Family Friendly' to the expense of 'Single' Australians. However the 'Ultra-Conservative' label is a as misinformed as calling the Labor party 'Ultra-Socialist'. They are a conservative party. No more and no less. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''While Family First generally directed their preferences to the conservative Coalition ahead of Labor, they reversed this in the seats of Brisbane and Leichhardt because Ingrid Tall (Liberal candidate for Brisbane) is a lesbian, and Warren Entsch (Liberal for Leichhardt) supports gay marriage.''


:"Conservative" is more a term that is appropriate for middle-ground parties (like the Liberal Party, for example). FF's policies are not just about "conserving" the society and policies we have now. Their polices are actually about reverting society back to a previous time in Australia's history (or perhaps even more extreme than that). Therefore, it's not enough to call them "conservative", the most appropriate description would be at least "very conservative" or similar. I remember that one of the MP's from another party described FF as a "very extreme political party". So there are sources available to justify describing them as extreme.
This seems decidedly redundant to me. I edited to remove the redundancy, but the edit was reverted; what is the argument for saying this twice? --] 04:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
:Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that the information was already in the article in another place. ] 04:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


::Well, dig them up and share your proposed improvements for the article here. (And please sign your posts with four tildes - that's the ~ character - so that your new posts get a signature and timestamp. I've just given that one an indent.) ] (]) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
::No problem. Have re-reverted. --] 04:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


== Religious affiliation ==
--] 09:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)==Snideness==


OK. We have a revert war going on. It's time for a mature discussion on this.
''the ] website was down for maintenance for a considerable period, coincidentally making it difficult to verify the affiliations of many candidates.''


The reality as it appears to me would be that the party has no formal links to a church, but the vast majority (if not all) of its members would be very conservative Christians, the majority of them being Assembly of God members. I see no problem with that being reported, so long as sound references can be found. It should not be embarrassing to anybody.
If there is additional evidence to indicate the outage was intended to obscure affiliations, by all means include it. If somebody has gone on record as alleging that, by all means quote it. Otherwise, stick to facts; snideness and sarcasm are inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article. --] 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


I'm certainly not aware of any formal connection between the party and a church, and the article should not suggest this, unless anyone can find a source that says otherwise.
: agreed. --] 01:26, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


So, let's stop the silly revert war and come up with reasonable words. Please use mine above as a starting point if you like. ] (]) 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate anyone contributing better wording that conveys the same information. Only evidence I have is at a local Meet the Candidates event at USQ, the FF candidate refused to deny he was involved with the AoG but refused to clarify his position within the organisation. Oh, about from the period the site was down.


== Logo ==
] 08:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know anything about the logo (its origins, design)? While it presents a stylized representation of Australia, it rather looks like a ]. ] (]) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


The logo you are referring to is obsolete. It was discontinued quite some time ago. Any resemblance to a mitre was purely coincidental. ] (]) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
: How about this? ''A large number of Family First's candidates are pastors or members of Assemblies of God churches. In New South Wales, 11 of their 23 candidates for the 2004 legislative election were from a single Assemblies of God church, the Hawkesbury Church in Windsor. Several commentators, including Labor frontbencher Kevin Rudd, have described Family First candidates as deliberately playing down their connections to the AoG. During the election campaign period, the Assemblies of God website was down for maintenance for a considerable period, making it difficult to verify the affiliations of many candidates or their exact positions within the AoG.''


== What makes the party "far right" ==
: I don't think it's appropriate to be joining the dots further than that unless there is some specific evidence that the downtime was an attempt at obfuscation. --] 23:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Just curious <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Alex you make a very good point, 11 out of 23 candidates from the AoG windsor church, how manu others are from AoG churches?
:A foolish desire among some people for simplistic descriptors in Infoboxes. I'd be happy to see it removed. ] (]) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Besides showing someone running the candidate seletion in NSW has a very close relationship with the Assembly of God church in Windsor. It tells everyone alot about the quality of candidate selection process.
::It's been a few days now with no further comment. I shall boldly remove it. ] (]) 04:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
:::Right-wing is fair. They are well to the right of the Liberals, especially under Day's leadership.--] (]) 22:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree, but it's opinion, so should not be included. We've been over the whole left/right labels many times - there is no consensus for them to remain. ] (]) 23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


==File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG Nominated for Deletion==
And should be included, as its a certified fact. Funnily enought that fact has dissapeared from that article, but still on net plenty of other places.
{|
http://www.glosk.com/AS/Leichhardt/-2243917/pages/Family_First_Party/106653_en.htm
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests July 2011''
;What should I do?
|-
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (] has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.


''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If people have a reason this FACT should not be on Wiki please explain, otherwise it should stay, so please do not remove it.
|}


==The DLP, then and now== == Offensive Bias ==


As a Christian, I find the way this party is referred to as "Christian" in the article to be extremely offensive. I don't know the best way to rewrite the article to differentiate between the fact that they believe themselves to be Christian and the fact that there are many of us Christians out here that are offended by their actions. As a Christian myself, I can categorically say that they do not represent a single Christian value of mine and that they actively work against all of my Christian values!
My understanding is that the current body running around in Victoria calling itself the DLP has some continuity issues with the DLP of the 70's. Is there some way we can incorporate that into the article? Something to the (concise) effect that equating this party with the party that was Australia's 4th largest at one stage is somewhat of a complicated exercise. ] <small>]</small> 03:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Just because a group believe they are Christian does not mean they represent everyone else thinks the same thing. Just because they claim a Christian leaning in their speeches does not make them Christian any more than Hitler making Christian statements in his speeches made him Christian.
: How about now? I'm not sure whether the tense change is necessary, but I think the rest of the paragraph now contains enough information for readers to figure out the meaning. For more detail, they can look at the DLP's own article. --] 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


If we want Misplaced Pages to be a factual, unbiased information source, the fact that so many of us Christians are offended by these guys should be mentioned at least.
::Excellent. ] <small>]</small> 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


:That would be the ] fallacy. If you can find reliable sources claiming that many (or some, or most, or whatever) Australian Christians disagree so strongly with Family First, then feel free to add it! ] (]) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
DLP should not be compared to the FFP as FFP is not christian and the DLP is. All references to DLP should be removed--] 11:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


::Yes, while I clearly understand your point, you would need an independent source describing the problem. They day all Christians agree on what defines a Christian our life here will be made a lot easier. ] (]) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
: The DLP would also claim to be secular. The comparison is apt. ] 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


== Family first overload ==
==Conservative status==
The whole ''Conservative status'' section seems like analysis. Is their a notable source for the distinction the paragraph makes between theological and political conservatism?


Even from a purely political view FF seems conservative. Just because the support Aboriginal Rights, social welfare etc doesn't mean they're not conservative. Many in the Liberal and National parties wouldn't count as conservatives, by the criteria put forth in this section .] 07:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I'm not really a Wikipedian, but I find this page very difficult to read and would suggest that it be edited to have less of an overload of Family First. The words appear 140 times in the page and I find it excessive. Almost every sentence starts with Family First. No offense to the author, but this article is simply badly written because it's horribly repetitive. The sentences also start with "Family first believes X" or "Family first supports Y" way too much. One example:
:Hi Ambi, I'm surprised you reverted my edits as partisan. Honestly, I can't guess which side of the partisan divide you think I'm on. But I can assure you that I'm not interesting in doing any edits from a POV perspective. I posted the above request for discussion a number of weeks ago and then made the changes when no comments were forthcoming. My only interest is in reducing the amount of unsourced commentary (and pedagogy) in the article. ] 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"Family First believes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong because diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted, but that having participated in that invasion Australia is now obliged to protect Iraqis and Australians in Iraq through a military presence."
Why not:
"Family First opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq because diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted, but ,having participated in that invasion, Australia is now obliged to protect Iraqis and Australians in Iraq through a military presence."
] (]) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


== Hopefully not an edit war over FFP's payments to ] ==
::I don't think this article really needs to get into the argument over whether or not FF are 'conservative'. A lot of that comes down to what the word itself means, and is better discussed over at ]. IMHO, it would be better to focus on the specifics - policies, actions, statements, etc. - and let readers make what they will of it.


"he was also receiving paycheques worth thousands of dollars a month from Family First and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party." and "Druery was also being paid by Family First in Victoria and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party in Queensland about $5,000 a month each for up to six months.".
::IIRC (which I may not), that discussion originally entered the article as an attempt to end argument about the 'political ideology' section of the party template. I do think it's potentially problematic to list them simply as 'conservative' - as the deleted section noted, they fit the description on some issues, not on others - and I'm not sure how best to tackle that, but I don't think the 'Conservative Status' section was the right answer. --] 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I plan to rewrite the article, and there is a lot more political categories other than 'conservative' that more aptly suit Family First. Finding the most fitting one should be a challenge, or it may not even be required. Their policy should present them better than a label would - and their policy has yet to be defined appropriately. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Firstly editor ] removed the statement saying it wasn't in the reference. I reverted it and left a message on said user's talkpage with the contents of both refs to back it up. Then they removed the statement again saying only shooters and fishers and not family first? Either Bell20 didn't read it, again, or they just don't want it on this page. ] (]) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
==SA==


Ah, here it is, on their talkpage. "That is incorrect. Whoever sourced that news report got it wrong.". Seems like a ] to me with no evidence to back up their claims. ] (]) 01:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This article badly needs some information about the South Australian state election, but I don't think I'm the best person to be writing it. ] 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
:Huh, interesting news about Druery being paid, though I guess he wasn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart. I'd say you're definitely in the right – hard to argue with references from the ABC, News Corp, ''and'' Fairfax. You can probably slip an "allegedly" or a "reportedly" somewhere in there if it becomes an issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']'''</small> 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
:I plan to draft a whole new version of this article and then see about replacing the current one; I will be including this along with a raft of FF stuff too. It'll be nice to see a politics article which is more than a punch and counter approach. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
::See their talkpage - they're claiming i'm the one with the COI, lol! I think they've got the message though - no response since. Always interesting to know who's putting up the ] preference trading funding though. Sports and Motoring got elected without known payments to Druery. FFP got a candidate elected and have paid money to Druery. FFP are the only ones who've both paid Druery and have been successful in electing a Senator candidate from the Minor Party Alliance, that we know of/have reliably sourced. So it's definately noteable :) ] (]) 05:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
::I'll be interested to see how it turns out, as this is something that seems to affect a lot of articles on Aus political parties (this, the Greens, and One Nation having particularly wretched articles). That said, you're pretty passionate about the topic, so please watch your biases with the rewrite. ] 04:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Is there much to be said on this? Their highest vote was 15% in the districts, less than the greens highest vote, and one seat in the LC. That about raps it up :P ] 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


== Removed issue tags ==
==Pornography section and Original Research==
The last para of the '''Pornography''' section smacks of ]. Is there a citeable 3rd party that made the link between the 93% and 75% figures and the suspicions of ]. If not, it needs to be removed. ] 07:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


I've removed a fly-by tag added yesterday to the head of the article for advert, and i've also removed a year-old tag in the policies section. Tags are meant to be used as short-term indicators that there are issues that require rectification, and should only be added once a discussion has been started on the talk page. Fly-by and long-term tagging without talkpage discussion is not how it's supposed to be used. If there are issues, raise them here or even better, fix them! ] (]) 07:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:Mea culpa. My intent was to provide more information about the poll than FF's quotes offered, but in hindsight I agree that it drifted into OR; hope it looks better now. --] 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


== Third party sources ==
::Thanks Calair. I checked out your User page, it seems like we have very similar goals on Misplaced Pages, (I especially dislike 'it should be noted that...' and the argument/counter-argument format).


The article has very few. This means that it is written completely based on primary sources, which means that it is essentially a PR piece.
::], I noticed you have removed my request for a cite a second time for this sentence:
<span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 20:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::''However, advocates of ] strongly objected as there is no surefire way to completely and only block pornography, suggesting that non-offensive sites may be ] inadvertently.''
::Would you be able to outline why to don't think the sentence requires ]? To me, 'advocates of FOI' sounds like ]. Regards, ] 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Without it, the page is biased. It espouses the Family First policy as if it has great widespread support and minimal objections. The sentence thus poses the other side of the argument in a fair and reasonable manner. ] 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::Subtle but important issue here: Misplaced Pages is not here to pose arguments. As ] says, "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::If FoI advocates did indeed strongly object, we should report that, with attribution. If they didn't, or if we can't find evidence that they did, we shouldn't make such a claim just because we want to rebut FF's arguments. Sadly, "it's so wrong that somebody ''must'' have criticised it" doesn't cut it.


I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::::By the way, this is exactly why I reconsidered some of my earlier edits as discussed above. I still believe that those criticisms of FF's arguments are valid, but without a citable source, they're only ''my'' criticisms - and no matter how good I think my arguments are, Misplaced Pages is not my soapbox.--] 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101019112247/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-e4r.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-e4r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090612084502/http://www.familyfirst.org.au:80/policy/policyasylumseekers.pdf to http://www.familyfirst.org.au/policy/policyasylumseekers.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820120812/http://www.sa-familyfirst.org.au/about.htm to http://www.sa-familyfirst.org.au/about.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:::::While I agree that it does pose verifiability issues, I believe the issue of neutrality is more fundamental here. ''If'' the article is going to set out all the reasons supporting the proposal (as it does here), it needs to go into the reverse, or it is patently biased. Alternatively, if it is written in the form of "okay, this is what is being proposed, and leave it at that", then no more needs to be said. This would, however, require a rewrite of the section. ] 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::::::As far as I can tell, all the 'reasons supporting the proposal' are sourced and clearly labelled as Family First claims rather than objective fact. We can't violate ] in order to provide balance. If I've missed something, or misunderstood your point, please let me know. Regards, ] 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
::::::: Actually, I just had another look through and found some cites that didn't support the statements they were attached to. I am trying to fix them. I think if we insist on cites for everything we can avoid many POV problems. ] 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::::::Was wondering why The Age poll indicating 65% of respondents against government-subsidised filtering was removed; surely it is more recent, and potentially more relevant, representation of the community opinion than the limited focus of "parents of 12-17 year olds" used in the Australia Institute research. ] 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
edit: I have re-read the paragraph in point and realised there is no real need for the information, thus the question is irrelevant.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::::Neutrality is important, but it doesn't justify unverifiable claims. If no significant organisations/speakers/etc stood up to oppose FF's proposal, this article should not tell readers that they did. If they ''did'' stand up, all we have to do is identify who they were and when/where they said it, which should not be terribly difficult. I went a-Googling and was a bit surprised at how little I found from the usual civil-liberties groups; about all I got was on mandatory filtering, which mentions FF as one of several groups who've advocated it without particularly focusing on them. --] 05:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::::::Meanwhile, I've changed 'freedom of information' to 'civil liberties' - the former generally refers to access to government-held information, rather than free access to non-government information, so I think the latter's a more applicable term here. I'd still like to know who these folk are, though. --] 05:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041029003552/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1209308.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1209308.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100507131445/http://www.qld-familyfirst.org.au:80/QLD.htm to http://www.qld-familyfirst.org.au/QLD.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:::::::How about we just chop the poll? This is what's causing half the problems. ] 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::::::::Fair enough; it's not essential to the section. I've removed the poll & the unsourced 'some object' bit. As it stands now the section's basically a description of their policy rather than an attempt to discuss the whole issue, which is consistent with the rest of the Policy section and probably for the best. Some of the snipped material might perhaps be worked into ], which could do with some attention. --] 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Much better. I have no objections to this as it stands. ] 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


== 2016 Election ==
== Atheist Family First Members & Candidates ==


I've reverted the edits relating to Bob Day - Senate results will not be confirmed for several weeks so we should wait until the AEC declare the composition of the new Senate. ] (]) 04:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a sentence about Atheist members and candidates, which has now been removed. To paraphrase myself, I said that "A significant number of Family First members and candidates identify as non-Christian and/or Atheist", and this statement is evidenced by the fact that I happen to be one of those Atheist (nominally Buddhist) FF members. ] 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:Please read ]. Further to that point, claiming that a "significant number" identify as non-Christian on the basis that you do isn't even particularly good original research. ] 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::The article suggests that Family First is a Christian organisation, and infers that non-Christians are not welcome. This is clearly not true, by the very fact that there are not only non-Christian members, but non-Christian candidates. ] 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::Claiming a significant number of non-Christian members and claiming that non-Christians are not welcome are two very different things. The former is up to you to show evidence for. No one here is claiming the latter. ] 09:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812141304/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-SA.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-SA.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805051205/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-20499-SA.pdf to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-20499-SA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812105302/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-NAT.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I would love to see the figures on the candidates, how many are christian, and how many are Assembly members?--] 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|needhelp=}}
== Anti-Evans web site ==


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The anti-Evans web site is a geocities web site. Should we be linking to that kind of site? ] 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
:I don't think so - its just a negative, non-authorative site. If we're going to link to something critical, we should link to something critical of substance (like an editorial). ] <sup>]</sup> 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
::It's hard to see how it meets the criteria in ]; it would be a bit of a stretch to call it either 'prominent' or 'neutral', and none of the other 'what to link to' points apply. But more than that, the focus is entirely on Evans and the AoG, not Family First... probably because the page was last updated ''five years before FF was even founded''. If it belongs anywhere on Misplaced Pages it would be on ] or ], not here. --] 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
:::It's so outdated that I can't see any use in it (not that it would be much better if it was updated). Michael's suggestion would be more appropriate. ] 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
==FFP view or FFP supporters view?==
Reading ], I was quite shocked to read the following: He took offence at a pamphlet put out by Family First Party campaigners, which identified brothels, masonic lodges, mosques, and Hindu and Buddhist temples as "strongholds of Satan".


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Campaigners speak on behalf of the party, so to me this shows that FFP believes the above mentioned places are considered "strongholds of Satan". And if this is indeed the case, it should be integrated in to ]. ] 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
: The incident is already mentioned in the '2004 Federal Election' section. --] 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=98&libID=120
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518171510/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21560972-5007146,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21560972-5007146,00.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::Indeed it is. Added the other minority groups, removed the 404 link. Does anyone have another link to reference to? I am unable to find one. ] 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:: And now it isn't. Sounds like some POV problems in the article have been introduced.


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
== Environmentalist? ==

In the Victorian state election, Family First had policies advocating the construction of new dams, a decrease in petrol taxes, and support for continued logging, and supported continued access to public lands for "recreational fishing, shooting and huting". in their policy collection. These views are diametrically opposed to most green groups.

Much of their election advertising was also directed at opposing the "extreme Greens".

They may profess support for the environment, but their views are clearly some distance from the currently active positions of the environmentalist movements (whether the views of the environmentalist movements are always correct is another debate, of course). --] 06:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The Greens do not own the enviranmentalist title. To suggest that you can't have opposing policy to the Greens (really the modern socialists) and be environmentalist is not verry accurate. ] 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

: Probably best if we just give their major policies and track record and let the reader decide what that makes them. The FF/Greens antipathy might bear mentioning somewhere in the article, but the 'environmental policy' section may not be the right place for it, since a lot of it is driven by issues other than the environment (LGBT rights being an obvious example). --] 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

:I "did" demonstrate their policy viewpoints - they're pro-logging, pro-hunting, pro-dam, and pro-petrol. On the significant contemporary environmental debates, FF and the environmental movement are on opposite sides of the fence. --] 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

::I wasn't criticising your edit. I think the issues you noted are relevant and should be in the section, as should notable issues where FF's policies ''do'' agree with the environmentalist movement. (Assuming that there are such, and acknowledging that environmentalism is not monolithic.) But I think it would be better to approach the section in the mindset of "FF policies on environmental issues" rather than "evidence for and against the claim that FF are environmentalist". --] 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree totally. Every major Australian political party acknowledges the importance of the environment to some extent these days - heck, even the National Party do these days. Furthermore, environmentalism is certainly not monolithic - I count myself an environmentalist and I can't stand the idiocy that Greenpeace and its ilk have descended into. However, that doesn't alter the fact that the major green groups such as the ACF, Greenpeace, the Wilderness society, and so on would find the four policies I listed above highly objectionable, as would the Greens.

:::On that basis, could somebody reinstate my edit, or reinstate some of the content? ] has just reverted holus-bolus. It's simply a nonsense to describe, without context, FF as an environmentalist party. --] 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

::::Done, along with some other changes. I added a section on 'relations with other parties' that could do with more detail and citing (particularly on the three major parties). The 'environment' section as it stands is still a bit one-sided, but this would be better remedied by adding material than deleting what's there. --] 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

== Dennis Hood and Creationism ==

Why is the paragraph on Dennis Hood + Creationism duplicated from the ] article? Apart from my objection to needless duplication of material, it is here in the section "Christian Connections", but what do Hood's personal beliefs have to do with FF Christian connections? ] 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

:Unless it's party policy or was the subject of some sort of scandal, nothing. Kill it. ] 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

::OK, I'm deleting it. ] 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

:::And I'm reinstating it, is the fact that it's similarly worded really the issue, or the fact that it's there at all? It is manifestly relevant because we're talking about a party which claims to be secular but whose high ranking members are not merely religious but, in Hood's case, quite probably hold some very extreme beliefs indeed. -- ] (] | ]) 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::Hmm, aren't you then making a judgement over what's extreme? We've had Liberal politicians expressing support for Intelligent Design also. I've no problem with the article saying that all elected members (and probably most candidates) are members of Pentecostal or evangelical churches. I have no problem with the Goers/creationism paragraph being in the ] article. But I think it's just of place here. I don't think an article on a political party needs to discuss the personal beliefs of one of its reps. Anyway, I'd like to hear what others have to say, though it seems I have one other editor on my side. ] 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::Yes, I'm making a judgement over what's extreme... in this discussion. In the article I am mentioning that a relevant declaration was publicly stated about him, and it was not refuted. There is no editorialising in the article, in fact it doesn't even say he's a Creationist, just that he was accused of being one and that his failure to address the point was conspicuous.

:::::The reason I believe it is relevant to discuss the personal beliefs of Dennis Hood '''here''' is because it goes to what, let's be honest, is the whole point of the "Christian connections" section of the article: that Family First is a de facto Christian party despite its claims to the contrary. Hood is an MLC and a party leader, and an increasingly prominent identity in Adelaide (the party's heartland), not some small fish. He's as much the public face of the party as anyone else. So on the dual grounds of the party's attempts at hiding its Christian foundations, and Hood's eminence within the party, I'd say it's very relevant. -- ] (] | ]) 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
::::::Hood... as I have said, and as he has said, public eschews any direct relationship between his party and the Church (a statement repeated over and over again by the party, to its detractors who seem rabid in their pursuit of branding it a 'Christian' party). His own personal views, which have nothing to do with his party, have no reason to be on this page. What is so special about his being a creationist? Why does one representatives' personal and uncontroversial beliefs have to do with the Family First party?

::::::There shouldn't be a "Christian connections" in the article; its equivalent to having a "Communist connections" in the Greens article, "Union connections" in the Labor article, and "Big business connections" in the Liberals article. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Firstly, I think all concerned would appreciate it if you tried to keep the conversational hierarchy legible in this discussion thread - it's not difficult.

:::::::The fact that Hood and the party at large insist that there's no connection between the church and the party is not in dispute, in fact it's the whole point. It's a controversial aspect of the party whether you like it or not, and as such extremely relevant to an encyclopedia article about it. '''The article is not meant to be an ad for Family First'''. The fact that you believe the article shouldn't even contain the whole "Christian connections" kind of undermines any claim you might have about '''my''' level of bias. What you're saying basically amounts to saying the OJ Simpson article shouldn't mention the murder case just because he says he didn't do it! :-) -- ] (] | ]) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::If you honestly think that Hood has "some very extreme beliefs indeed" you are prejudiced towards him and also absolutely wrong. This is muckraking, nothing more. Hood has public disassociated his party from the Church, attends a small Baptist one himself, and is there on an irregular basis.

::::But, to the point, this is the ] article, not the ] article. It does not belong and has been given negligible media attention. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::I'm not pretending I'm unbiased, but nor is ], who is a party member. We're all biased, the only issue is whether the words in the article are biased. They are referenced statements of fact. Have outlined my case for its relevance above. -- ] (] | ]) 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::P.S.: as for my being "absolutely wrong", if you can offer me proof that he's not a Creationist, not only will I put it in the article, but I'll be so relieved you'll have made my day. -- ] (] | ]) 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::You're absolutely wrong for being prejudiced (stating that he has some "pretty extreme beliefs indeed") and not knowing what you're talking about before putting your hands to the keyboard. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Er, I have a right to state anything I like on this discussion page, short of personal abuse which I have most certainly not resorted to. What's important is what is on the article page. I have explained that the material I have added is both '''a)''' factually accurate and referenced, and '''b)''' relevant. You have offered nothing to counter either of these assertions.

:::::::I do not have to respect Dennis Hood or the Family First Party in order to contribute to their pages on Misplaced Pages, I only have to respect Misplaced Pages. If I don't "know what I'm talking about", then by all means correct me instead of just berating me. -- ] (] | ]) 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Correct, yes. Relevant, no. His Christian belief and church connections are relevant, but I still don't see why one particular belief should be singled out, especially since there's been no ongoing controversy about it, in a page which is after all about a party not a person. Anyway, since I'm an FF member I'll bow out. For now :) ] 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::The "one particular belief" should be singled out because it's an indication of the extremity of his faith. For a leader of a party which claims to be secular, of course it's relevant... in an article about him, '''and''' about the party. -- ] (] | ]) 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Additional: As for "ongoing controversy", I don't think we require controversy, ongoing or otherwise, about his Creationism specifically because I'm only citing the Creationism as a relevant factor/element to what '''is''' an ongoing controversy: the question of FF's secular claim versus its Christian affiliations. -- ] (] | ]) 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

== Similar Parties ==

I think this following section contains a huge amount of ].

The CDP has never had anywhere near the level of support Family First has managed to attract within a few years of its emergence. One possible reason for this is an Australian reluctance to combine religion and politics — where Family First has striven to present itself as a secular party, the CDP emphasises its Christian beliefs, and its public leader Fred Nile is an ordained minister. Another possible reason is Fred Nile's notoriously outspoken rhetoric, which may have reflected badly upon the CDP. Besides broadening Family First's direct appeal to voters, its less religious image may also have made it easier to secure valuable preference deals with other parties. The Family First party also showed a surprising degree of national organisation for a newly-formed political party; this may be associated with the experienced former Liberal Party figures who have become members of the party. Finally, Family First has mixed ethical positions usually associated with the conservative right with other positions associated with the left, allowing those people who are opposed to (for example) both abortion and the war in Iraq to be able to vote for a single party.

Unless there are some citations, this seems like pure speculation and theorising, and it will have to be cut. ] 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

: Yeah, you're right, and some of that OR was my fault. I've cut it back to things that (I hope) should be more supportable; it could still do with more cites, but I don't think the claim that FF has mustered more support than the CDP managed is really in doubt, nor that FF is less eager than the CDP to be seen as a 'Christian party'. Also removed the bit about combining left and right/wing positions, because it's never really been that cut-and-dried; there are plenty of Labor MPs opposed to abortion, for instance. --] 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

:::This whole section remain pure OR and uncited, so I chopped it. ] 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

==Blogs don't bypass WP:OR==

I've reverted an edit that cited original research in the editor's own blog. Publishing OR in one's own blog and then citing that blog here has exactly the same verifiability problems as posting that OR straight to Misplaced Pages, on top of the problems associated with people linking to their own sites; as per ], self-published blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, with some exceptions not applicable here. --] 03:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

:(Disclosure: I'm an FF member). I agree with those comments. Also, there is the question of what is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I think the information is way to esoteric for an encyclopedia article. The entry could perhaps be put in the external links section - on the basis that it is interesting and informative extra reading - if editors other than the blog author (and FF members like myself) were convinced it was useful. And if the external link is kept, it should be at the ] article rather than here, because the blog entry is more about Fielding than FF as a whole. In summary: definitely remove, possibly put a link at ]. ] 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::Yes, it'd probably be reasonable as an external link from ]. I don't have a problem with the information's usefulness, only with the nature of the cite, and that's less of an issue with external links. --] 07:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

::As an example of why self-published sources are a problem:

::The current version of this article claims: "Senator Fielding has an attendance record of 69% of all Senate divisions, which compares favourably to other independent Senators of recent times". That claim cites , which says:

::"Senator Steve Fielding took office in July 2005 having been elected in October 2004. From that time until the end of June 2007 there have been 588 divisions in the Senate, divided between the Senate sitting as the full chamber and the Senate in Committee... Since taking office, Senator Steve Fielding has been absent for 147 divisions, yielding an attendance rate of 69%." (i.e. an absentee rate of 31%.)

::147/588 is exactly 25%, not 31%. I thought maybe the attendance rate was meant to apply only to the full-Senate ones, so I added those up using the . I confirmed the figure of 588 divisions total in this period. The APH figures list 162 full-chamber divisions for 2005, 218 for 2006, and 85 for the first half of 2007. Add these up and you get 465 full-chamber divisions. Divide 147 absences by 465 divisions and you get an absentee rate of 0.316; round that down (not that one should) and you get 31% absent/69% attendance.

::But did you spot the mistake? The figures for 2005 cover the WHOLE year, including the period before Fielding took office. The page doesn't split the counts, but it's easy enough to manually count the divisions for the first half of 2005 and confirm that 33 of them were full-chamber divisions. Subtracting that from 465 gives 432 full-chamber divisions during Fielding's term; 147/432 = 0.340, which would mean attendance of 66%, ''not'' the 69% reported in the analysis. As far as I can tell, the only way to get that figure of 69% is by inadvertently counting Fielding as 'attending' votes he wasn't even eligible for.

::This is the problem with self-published sources. There is no quality control, no guarantee that the person performing the analysis is experienced with such things and knows how to avoid the pitfalls that can easily trip up even a 'straightforward analysis' of published data. It simply isn't reasonable to expect Misplaced Pages editors or readers to give this level of vetting to every bit of original research that gets posted here to see whether that particular one happens to be sound (indeed, I only vetted one part of this article - it would've taken much longer to check ''all'' the data presented). Either we accept such sources or we don't, and I think this is a pretty good argument for "don't". --] 09:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am the contributor to the addition stating Family First's Federal parliamentary voting record. I am prepared to defend the addition and refute the claims made above. I would make the following points:

1. The distinction between an elected member of a party and his/her record, and the record of the party as a whole cannot apply when the party has only one elected member in parliament. Steve Fielding's voting record ''is'' the record of FF in the Australian Senate. The two cannot be separated. One may claim that this analysis should ''also'' be included in Fielding's personal page, but that does not serve as an argument to ''exclude'' it from here.

2. Calair invokes the wikipedian principle of OR to exclude the data. The source data quoted is the parliamentary website. The article cited (admittedly, my own) which merely ''collates'' it does not constitute OR in the wikipedian sense for the following reasons:
::There is no synthesis of new data, merely a count and presentation of the number of votes taken in the Australian Senate. If a particular cited source presents a long list of something but no tally at the end that sorts the list, is merely sorting the list and saying that the list contained x% of ''A'' and y% of ''B'' original research? If it is, then this definition would exclude much more than it currently does.
::Misplaced Pages's own definition of OR clearly allows for this contribution. It introduces no new theory and defines no new terms. More importantly, the guidelines state if a contribution contains ''"an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that '''builds a particular case favored by the editor'''"'' (their emphasis) then this is excludable. ''Even if'' this contribution was seen as analysis or synthesis, then does it advance a particular view? No. It merely presents a voting record, eminently relevant to the perception of the party, without judgement as to those figure's significance.

3. Calair takes exception to the math and says that it reveals poor or unthorough methodology. On reviewing the original figures, I concede one typo but must take exception to Calair's construction on the rest. For those who want the working out, here it is:
::The parliamentary records are broken down by year. I did '''not''' include the first half of 2005 in any calculation involving Fielding. From the first Senate sitting after the investiture of the new Parliament until 31 Dec 2005 was 174 divisions. From Jan01-Dec31 2006 was 299 divisions. From Jan01-June30 2007 was 115 divisions. This totals to 588, as presented. Fielding was indeed absent from 148 of those divisions, as presented. I concede this represents an attendance rate of 75%, not 69% as originally stated. This has been corrected, and in Fielding's favour. My bad.
::Calair is entirely wrong to state I counted divisions for which Fielding is ineligible, as he also is in jumping through hoops to compare full-Senate or committee. I stated no such division between vote-types (for the sake of simplicity).

4. The relevance of this section ought to be obvious, and objectors who are admitted members of the party are not following wikipedian principles themselves by trying to censor it. The ''overwhelming'' commentary surrounding FF's entrance into Federal Politics surrounded its Church connections (which, surprise surprise, FF supporters want excluded entirely from inclusion in this article), and from the preference deals and 'natural' political alignments that FF were assumed to have. A short, unbiased inclusion such as mine which presents Fielding's voting pattern and points out that FF has readily voted with the Opposition and the Greens ''more often'' than with the Government should be eminently cogent for inclusion.--] 13:53, 28 July 2007

: Quoting ], emphasis mine: "The term also applies to any unpublished '''analysis''' or synthesis of published material '''that appears to advance a position'''".

: What you are doing here - adding up Fielding's absences, adding up the divisions, etc etc, and the same for other senators, and calculating attendance rates - is "analysis", and not as trivial as it first looks, for reasons I'll get to below. Turning those into 'patterns' - reporting that Fielding votes with the Opposition and Greens more often than the Government, or to compare his performance with other independent senators, is "advancing a position". (The words "compares favourably" should be a bit of a giveaway here.)

: "Fielding was indeed absent from 148 of those divisions, as presented." Actually, the version previously presented in your blog claimed 147 absences (confirmed in Google cache ; don't know how long it will be before the cache is updated to reflect your more recent corrections). Assuming that one of these counts is correct, this isn't a large mistake compared to the 69%/75% one, but it's another reminder that self-published research is unreliable. How can we be sure there aren't other addition errors and typos for the other four senators listed here?

: Further, the word "absent" doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate records you're working from; they merely record "yes", "no", or "-". Absence is certainly a plausible explanation for most of those "-"s, but presumably the same result would be recorded if Fielding was present and deliberately chose to abstain from voting... and there's another possibility, too.

: From your clarification above, you based Fielding's absentee rate on the total number of 588 divisions in that period, both full-senate and committee - presumably counting all "-"s as absences. But did you ascertain whether Fielding is actually a ''voting member'' of all those committees? I'm no expert on Senate procedure, but my understanding is that Fielding is not eligible for all commitee votes (and could not be even if he wanted); presumably a vote for which he was ineligible would be represented with the exact same "-" as one for which he was absent. But obviously it is inappropriate to treat them the same way when trying to calculate his participation rate - let alone when comparing them to other independent senators, who may have had more or less opportunity to participate on committee votes.

: There are plenty of other questions that arise - are sheer vote-counts a reliable way to assess Fielding's sympathies with other parties? If Fielding votes with the Coalition once on each of five separate issues, and then ten times with Labor on a single issue, a raw count will show that he favours the Labor side twice as often as the Coalition... but no sensible analyst would take that as an overall indicator of pro-Labor sympathies. Even if all the calculations are correct, performing an inappropriate analysis on data will yield misleading results.

: I apologise for mistakenly suggesting that you counted the divisions that took place before Fielding was elected... but it did not occur to me that 69% for 75% would be a typo, so it was the only way I could see that you might have got that figure.

: "objectors who are admitted members of the party are not following wikipedian principles themselves by trying to censor it" - careful with those plurals. As far as I can tell, the only 'admitted member of the party' who's objected to that data is ]. I most certainly am ''not'' a FF member. --] 06:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

: I've posted a note over on ] asking for input on this issue. --] 06:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::Blogs are almost never a reliable source and statistics are often used to lie. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics" is a famous quote for a reason. Misplaced Pages should never describe the voting of a political figure in anything but the exact wording of a reliable source. ] 13:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

::To me, the case is clear-cut. Essentially the purpose of the edit is to assert a point of view as to the quality of the member. That potentially breaches the neutral stance, depending in part how it is written. Secondly, an analysis of attendance is fraught with interpretation issues so is rarely a simple counting exercise - again as we are trying to make a point this is not a good thing to do. Thirdly, verification policy suggests that the quality of the source needs to be taken into account, and the likes of blogs are specifically highlighted as poor quality sources. The concept of peer review is important - a blog assertion has not been tested. Next, although we can see that the editor is sincere in believing that the analysis is justified, that is not sufficient - even if we accept the analysis, a reader cannot verify this for themselves with some reasonably accessible source (the way Wiki phrases this is verifiability not truth).

::Finally, all policies should be read together rather than picking out particular aspects, and my reading of the total policy is that policy is intended to stop partisan views being allowed to influence a neutral approach to the writing. Ultimately, that is the issue, and we don't really need to quote policy to understand that given Misplaced Pages is to be a neutral, trusted resource, care must be taken to ensure a non-partisan stance. When an article gets written in a reliable source that says Fielding is a great or poor representative of the people due to his diligent/poor approach to voting, then that can go in, but even then there still needs to be care to present such a view in a non-partisan way. ] 13:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

:::Baliset's accusation that I am trying to censor is laughable. I am simply pointing out Misplaced Pages policy. Actually I think the blog entry paints Fielding in a very good light, and if it was up to my bias I'd love to see it in. He's also accused "FF supporters" (by implication me, since I'm the only one in this debate) of wanting to exclude church connections from this article. I'm sure he'll either provide evidence that I've ever done that, or stick to debating issue at hand. ] 07:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

With respect I still disagree. The purpose of the addition is to present factual information, and it has even been re-edited to ensure there are no value-laden terms (removal of the word "favourably" in relation to the comparison to other Senators). By no stretch could the presentation of percentages, without editorialising, be seen as advancing a view. (and I would add, like Peter, that the inclusion of "positive" figures is despite my trenchant criticality of the party in other forums, so I can't be fairer than that). The numbers themselves have been fact checked (again, I corrected a value after peer review revealed a mistake) and the source quoted are tables at the parliamentary website itself (whose figures here have merely been totalled in a novel, but mathematically straightforward way, a simply verifiable operation for someone with five minutes and a spreadsheet). It matches the criteria for NPOV, for relevance (as previously detailed above), for accuracy, and for verifiability. Thus, it is eligible for inclusion. baliset 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

:I'm afraid that it is a common misunderstanding with Misplaced Pages that although what you say has merit, it is not the rules that Misplaced Pages works by (though I am happy to point out that there is plenty of debate on these issues). Misplaced Pages specifically states that an editor is not allowed to develop their own views, even where it can be seen that there is the best intent to be neutral. The concepts of original research, and to a certain extent verification, depend upon concepts interpreted in a very specific way, and although I understand why you believe you are correct, what you have explained does not match the Wiki view of the world, as has been explained above.

:One element I am never happy about in parliamentary issues, are things like attendance records. There really are so many things that can happen in the systems. For example, in the UK, there has been a system called pairing, where you can agree with an opponent that you will both not turn up to vote. So someone who happens to have a faithful and reliable pairing relationship may appear to have a poorer voting record than someone who just does not bother to turn up. So even though you can put a reliable calculation in there, the presentation of this information is suggesting an interpretation of behaviour which is novel. Someone may have significant responsibilities that interfere with their ability to attend and so on. Even if you could find it referenced somewhere, Misplaced Pages is also concerned with the quality of resource, so if we had a right wing or left wing publication doing the calculation we would find that suspect, if it was a newspaper, we would have to question the context of the article, if it was some Government Inquiry into attendance, then that might be good, if it was an academic review published in an academic journal the assumption is that it is a worthy peer review, rather than getting some other bloke to check some sums as they could take a critical look at the reasoning, not just the sums. Hope that clarifies - not that Misplaced Pages policy is that clear! ] 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

::I think this is a key point. Fielding's attendance record is essentially a meaningless statistic (assuming that he does mostly attend).The Democrats in NSW (for example) have analysed in detail how crossbenchers have used (or not used) their votes in parliament, something much more useful. For example, is someone really "independent" when their voting record shows are more likely to vote "strategically" in the close divisions? Then there's the comparison question - Fielding is compared to previous one-man-band senators but not to other crossbench parties, so again there is the potential to mislead the reader. Obviously it's much more challenging to compare the attendance record of an individual with that of parties with multiple members, but some sort of comparison is surely needed. BTW, "pairing" is generally only available between the major parties and is intended to make it possible for ministers to perform their functions without risking a government's parliamentary majority. Pairs are recorded in the Hansard record of each division so they can be analysed. Also, it is not unknown for an MP to seek a pair to avoid actually having to vote in a way that is personally abhorrent but required by the party. ] 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

: My looking over it isn't peer review. I went far enough to spot one numerical mistake, and to identify methodological concerns, but I didn't check all the numbers for Fielding, and I didn't check ''any'' of the numbers for other senators. Even if I'd gone over the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb, I'm a semi-anonymous WP editor with no particular credentials in political analysis; I might be able to show that something is wrong but my approval wouldn't be enough to make the data verified. I've been working in science long enough to know that people make mistakes even with spreadsheets - but as Spenny suggests, the real issue here is not whether the sums are correct but whether they're the right sums to be doing. --] 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Is Family First a Christian Party? ==
Since most people in Australia believe it is a Christian Party, they need to be told the case it is not, as stated on their official website.

Its website says NO, so I had changed the page to reflect that today.

CJ cant you make up your mind, first you didnt it stating th eparty was christian, now you dont want it sating its not christian, its a option A or B choice, why do you delete both choices?

What do people think? since they are offically not christian
--] 11:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:Officially the ALP is not a trade union. ] 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

What does that mean? you think Family First is offically not christian but it is really? Do you have proof of that?--] 11:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

:Christian MPs. Christian-friendly views. If it smells looks and sounds like a tiger... ] 11:48, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

And if 11 out of your 23 candidates in one state come from the same branch of Assembly of God church, what does make it sound. look and smell like?--] 11:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CJ came here and you would he would of read the section, when he moved it, but wont answer why he deleted it being called christian and now is deleting it being called not christian. I would like to know as it makes no sence.--] 12:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:Look harder. I have responded to you in the section below and on your talk page.--] | ] 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee didnt know it was game of hide and go seek, like the guy who things its ok to quote somthing without reference, because where it comes from is in the disscussion.--] 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

== Links to Christian Groups ==
I'd suggest removing the comment in the first paragraph which suggests that the F1 party has 'links to Christian organisations'. Although Andrew Evans (co-founder) himself was an AoG leader, F1 does not retain links these days. However, before I removed the reference I am open to comments and thoughts... ~~

It doesnt have that now, but saying it is a christian party, with christian views (Offcourse). Which is odvious since it was created by christians, run by christians, supported mainly by christians.--] 11:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
:As reverting again would put me on the receiving end of the 3RR wooden spoon, I'm prohibited from doing so! But, young IP registered gentleman (or woman, as we can't be sexist), I'd suggest that you check some facts:—
:*This particularly party might be more Christian aligned than most, but it is officially secular.
:*It was agreed, through much discussion on this page and others, that FFP supports a particular brand of conservatism: that influenced by Christian values, but not explicitly Christian ("Christian-influenced conservatism")
:*Both Labor and the Coalition have a majority of Christians in the parliament, and both have people who oppose abortion; so why is this unique to FFP and needs to be so prominently mentioned?
:I think debating this with you is going to be about as fun as attempting to put my genitals into an electric pencil sharpener, but I thought it would be polite to try anyway. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not the alleged christianity - it's the links to one specific flavour, the AoG. It's also clear that some FFP and AoG acolytes are keen to pretend that party members' religious backgrounds are equivalent to those of other "mainstream" parties - obviously so that their party is not perceived by more secular voters as being an arm of a controversial church movement which they thereby confirm as damaging to its/their political ambitions. Such behaviour is hardly honest or particularly in line with christian ethics, but only too common in the world of politics. ] 02:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:There's this ravenous antipathy between FFP and the GP, both spewing out irrational nonsense and completely misrepresenting the other... ] <sup>]</sup> 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:: Playing the man is easier than debating the issue eh? ] 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Much happier hanging out with all the more athletic, jocky, handsome, socially-admired and women-desired lads in the schoolyard. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::Whatever turns you on - and I thought you were such a nice socially conservative, family values sort of person too... But I'd still like to understand why there's a revert war every time someone makes explicit the links between the FFP and (one kind of) organised religion. Surely it's a huge public con job to pretend otherwise - and we do like to stick with the facts and avoid the spin. ]
:::::On topic, yes, I agree that we should mention a party's links with groups that support it, but we should do it honestly and neutrally, and not like there's a conspiracy theory behind it, or the boogie man is in bed with them, conspiring to enforce on the population. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
::::As I recall, ] just included the word "christian" in the party description. That's not particularly controversial if you ask me (or the average voter). The conspiracy theories result when apologists for FF run around denying it (see my reasoning above for their justification). We're just waiting for the cock to crow it seems. ] 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I have put FFP is not christian as thats what they claim, people need to be told this as most everyone else in australia thinks they are.

CJ make up your mind you dont want them called christian, but they say they are not christian and you dont wnat that in the article either. Dont you want people to know the truth? CJ would you like to confirm or deny you have ever voted ffp, you go to Assembly of
God church? jsut to get a perspective on your irrational behaviour?--] 11:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:Firstly, please ] make assumptions. Secondly, you need to realise that Misplaced Pages is not about truth; if you can't, you best leave now.
:I don't mind if it is mentioned in the ] that although FFP officially denies being a Christian party, they are often/widely portrayed/considered so, ''if'' it is ] to a ]. Such would be suitably ], IMV. This is not, however, what 203.87.127.18 has attempted, which is why he has been reverted left, right and centre.--] | ] 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

::Thats generous of you, But I want to quote the offical website and the president of the party which says it is not. If you then want to say its considered/ etc etc christian based on who who know definition of what a christian party is, you can add that and a supporting reference if you like. I know we should always word things as to not make it look like fact.

::The FFP official website states that is not a Christian Party and not linked to the Assembly of God church. How does that sound?

::Then you could add xxxx believes the ffp is a christian party. with suitable reference.<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

::Misplaced Pages not about truth, that interesting I thought encylopedias are about truth, Do you have a reference on Wiki thats says its not about truth? being presented neutrally doesnt mean not telling the truth, nothing is presented 100% neutrally, its impossible closest thing is truth really. Not left to right to centre, From incorrect to correct, your has been just opposed too, opposed too. I still noticed you havent said your not Assembly of God. If you want to be neutral CJ can start by deleting anything about religion, actually you will have to delete most of Wiki if you want to be neutral.

::Looking forward to quote on wiki stating its not about truth, then will get slashing anything that not neutral.--] 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::First sentence of ]. --] 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
:::Also, before you go around 'slashing anything that not neutral', take the time to read ]. --] 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes must be verified, you just cant go putting the truth on alone that what it means, Doesnt mena you should biasedly neutral ignoring truth, its about referencing (Tho the referencing on the site is appaling). Does it mean your neutral to the extent of excluding a politicals party own partys statements unless you can find an opposing view? Well nobodys deleteing all the info and references form the FFP policies sections and they dont opposing views stating the opposite, so they arnt neutral. If I went and deleted them I bet somone would undelete them even tho they dont have opposing view points. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: You have the wrong end of the stick. Part of 'neutrality' is that significant viewpoints should be acknowledged. The purpose of the policy section is to state what they ''are'', and there is only one significant viewpoint on that - I don't think anybody challenges the claim that FF's policy opposes abortion, for instance. (There have been some minor issues of interpretation/context/etc on a couple of the subsections, but nothing that really qualifies as a significant debate.)
: How do we reconcile this with verifiability? Simple: if there isn't a verifiable, notable source for a viewpoint, it probably isn't significant. FF's rejection of the 'Christian party' tag is verifiable and noteworthy; I think there are also verifiable examples of others applying it to them, and both those can be mentioned here. What WP shouldn't do is make a statement on whether they ''are'' a 'Christian party' - especially since we don't even have a good definition for what that term might ''mean''.
: In some cases it's easy; the Christian Democrats are Christians both individually and collectively, because their party's official statements explicitly invoke that religion, so describing them as a 'Christian party' is not contentious. FF is rather more ambiguous, and it's better to give readers the (verifiable) information and let them make up their own minds than to interpret it for them. --] 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:: I don't think it's ambiguous at all. I'm an FFP executive member, and I'm not a Christian. There are plenty of non-Christians in the party. Family First is not a Christian party. ] 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

== Pro life means anti abortion ==

http://lee.greens.org.au/index.php/content/view/1266/58/

Definitions of Pro Life on the Web:

Pro-Life is the self-description for those in North America and Great Britain who are of the general political opinion that abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and other issues regarding the sanctity of life are morally wrong and should be illegal in most cases.
en.wikipedia.org/Pro_Life--] 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:Yes, a "general opinion", and "illegal in most cases". But extrapolating from their pro-life position that Family First "would make illegal if they could" is ] ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"), and ]. --] 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:'Opposed to abortion' does not automatically mean wanting to ban it. I think the world would be better off without cigarettes and reality TV, and I might ''discourage'' those things, but I wouldn't support an outright ban; some people take the same approach to abortion. It would certainly be reasonable to guess from FF's stated policies that they'd like to make abortion illegal, but Misplaced Pages is not the place for guesses, even reasonable ones. --] 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::Are you opposed to saying they are Pro Life and anti Choice? thats quite odvious as its stated on their website. We wont guess that they actually would like their policys as law.... even tho thats the whole point of them.--] 11:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

:::First off, there are ''many'' things an anti-abortion party could do to discourage abortion other than making it illegal - for instance, they could fund programs promoting alternatives, they could leave them legal but no longer available through the public health system, or they could narrow the circumstances in which it's permitted without altogether banning it.
:::Second, "pro life" is not synonymous with "anti-abortion". The two very often go together, but "pro life" has broader meanings than that; depending on who's using it, it also covers issues such as stem cell research and capital punishment (as well as several others already covered in this article). It may well be that FF's policy on those other issues is also consistent with "pro life", but that hasn't been documented here as far as I can see. The word itself also has POV problems (see ] for discussion). If we have to summarise, "anti-abortion" would be a better term - less fuzzy and reasonably neutral. But really, the quote is short and to the point - does it ''need'' to be explained? --] 15:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I have added an opposing opinon with reference to the article above, did you read it?<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to. --] 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

::The article above at the top which has an opinion third party therefore neutral, did you read it?--] 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with the anonymous editor's changes, it does highlight one of the problems with this article - it's been the subject of so many arguments over its content that our descriptions of their policies tend to contain only official quotes rather than brief summaries of where they actually stand. This is a bit unusual for articles of its kind, and I think we could do a better job of documenting the party's policies. In this particular case - perhaps stating that the party is opposed to abortion might be better than the waffly quote which says exactly the same thing. ] 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

: I think part of that's to do with a shortage of material to draw on. For the big parties, we can look at what they do when they're in government; even in opposition, they're numerous and visible enough that there's plenty to say about e.g. Labor's IR policy. (Also, one of the luxuries of being a minor party of any stripe is not having to flesh out policies in as much detail.) FF is a smaller group with less opportunities to put its policies into practice, so a lot of the time it's hard to find much beyond the official pronouncements. --] 15:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who is anonymous and why is Rebecca not anonymous? Its just an account name on the internet or are thinks being tracked? Pro life YES nobody thinks adults should be murdered and neither should unborn children. Pro choice is PRO MURDER! simple as that--] 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

== Policy Formating ==

Why does one policy start

According to their web site, Family First say

The rest say

Family First and dont mention their website--] 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

== Family First are also opposed to The Pill and the IUD ==

By their Abortion statement, they define "from conception" as their point of life begining and therefore are against abortion.

Im sure all the intelligent people who live on this blog, know that both types of The Birth Control Pill and the IUD do not guarentee conception (Sperm fertilising the Egg) does not happen. These forms of birth control do odviously stop the embryo making it to full term, by stopping the fertilised egg from continuing.

So by their statement they are also opposed to both types of the Birth Control Pill and the IUD. Im sure alot of the ignorant Family Family First candidates, party members do not even realise this. Im sure alot have nothing against the pill, so these are hypocrites aswell as ignorant.--] 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Family First's policy is purely a recognition of the value of life. Most Family First members may not like abortion, but it is NOT a policy of our party to make it illegal. Our position is to promote informed choice - that is, that a parent choosing to abort a child be made fully aware of the alternatives (adoption, Government support etc.), and that adequate support (counseling) be made available to the parent no matter which decision is made. Family First policy isn't defined purely by our abortion & euthanasia policies. Maybe you should read our proposal to reduce the petrol tax by 10c, or to make over-the-top banking fees illegal. Those are the important issues that affect families. ] 14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to the Murder of "unborn babies" but would not stop it? That is even worse than banning it! How can you justify I dont like murder, but I wont stop it even tho I could! LOL
Panatacial, do you approve of the pill/iud would you be happy if your wife would use either?--] 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So where does FFP plan to get the 100's of millions of dollars from not charging the 10c excise Not TAX? Right tell a business they can not make money by doing X! they will get the same money some other means. How are either of them family related, that helps poor people. So why not get rid GST? thats the thigns that screws the poor for more than their fair share of money.--] 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Their policy is about reducing terminations not about informing people. FFP about informed choice? Informed from one side! (Which is not informed) do they want doctors to tell every preganant woman that medically termination is the best opion as its far safer (Much lower risk of death) (Enormously lower chance of chance of complications) than having a baby. Also want to talk about mental side, Post natal depression out strips termination mental probs, let alone all the stress strain from raising a kid. As a friend of mine and very prominant ObGyn says according to the hippocratic oath doctors should not have anything to do with pregnancy apart from terminations!--] 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

== Lead section is too sterile ==

In my opinion, the lead section (i.e. before the Table of Contents) needs a short paragraph on what FF stands for (See ] for comparison). (I'd rather not write it myself because I'm a party member). I don't mean the single phrase "social conservative" (though that's better than nothing). The lead should also '''very briefly''' mention the contention over FF's close church ties, e.g. ''"The officially a secular party, Family First has been criticised for having close ties to the AOG church."'' I say this because the lead should introduce the main content of the article, and it's impossible to mention FF without mentioning it's social conservatism, and the debate over its church ties. ] 12:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:Added something that sounds about right. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

:: I don't think the allegations over ties to the AoG church form the identity of the Family First Party. I'm an FFP member, I'm not an AoG member, and there are lots of us who participate in the FFP because we genuinely care about families. ] 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::They're not ''alleged'' in the intro, they're ''implied''; personally I hate having to bend over and word it this way to satisfy the ravenous demands of those who see FF = Christian Party. I don't know how many times I've read newspaper articles saying FF = Christian, and then the party having to deny it again and again and again and (after that) ''again''. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry to cause you such grief, but despite these protestations, FF is perceived by the mainstream to be a Christian party - conservative Christian "values", conservative Christian members (a few loonies and a few more moderate), and capped off with a hyper-sensitivity to being called Christian because they know it doesn't sell well in the electorate. All the more reason to make the link and the issue of the link plain. I thought ] short para was well written and fairly balanced and I'd support it going back in. I see no consensus for its removal and I will revert. ] 13:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::That's an absolutely ridiculous claim perpetuated by people like you (an office-bearer in the Australian Greens) for your own electoral benefit with absolutely no truth in reality. You can't use the justification that Family First is seen by some (ie, you) to be a fundamentalist Christian organisation to justify perpetuating that myth. ] 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Michael's addition said, ''"Officially ], many of its candidates and members are from ] backgrounds; perceived links to Churches have been a subject of contention."''. Perhaps we should remove the first part, so that the lead simply says, ''"perceived links to Churches have been a subject of contention."'' I think the lead needs to say ''something'' about perceived links, because it's a big issue. (Not saying the party's Christian, of course). And I'm a FF member. ] 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::I disagree, I think it's only made an issue by FF's opponents. If we are to mention "perceived" links, it should not be in the header of the article, because we are not defined by Christian links that simply don't exist.] 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Perceived? is not accurate word to use. Just look at the candidates and their religious beliefs! its not percieved its a fact. Do you perceive the party to be christian in its beliefs wants?--] 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:I'll bite, just this once. THIS Family First candidate is not a Christian.] 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
This is just too precious to believe. We have one non-Christian FF candidate and so there's no perception that there's a link to certain Churches and their strand of (allegedly) Christian values. Pull the other one... ] 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:Maltby, do us all a favour and loose that oh-so-typical aloof attitude of most Greenies. I've rewritten it ''again''. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::Huh? Who's stereotyping now? Anyway, I won't complain about your revision to the intro words. Let's see how ] the non-Christian feels. ] 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I don't think it's appropriate to talk about supposed Christian links in the very first paragraph. We're not about religion, despite what some people might want others to think. We're about family values informed by traditions which include, but are not limited to the Christian traditions. My values, for example, are informed by my Chinese upbringing. It would be like me making the following change to the Australian Greens article: "The Australian Greens, commonly known as The Greens, is an Anarchist Australian political party, espousing the overthrow of traditional values. Many of its candidates and members boast criminal records, although the party itself promotes peace." Coming from anybody, that sounds ridiculous. Coming from a Family First candidate, it's pure propaganda - which is exactly the purpose of Chris Maltby's in perpetuum edits. ] 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::That's mostly because those kinds of allegations about the Greens are demonstrably non-factual. The links between FF and A0G are an established fact, in spite of the protestations of FF members. ] 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::I've removed Christian links, which I think is quite appropriate. Phanatical, this article needs a makeover in many places more pressing than this one line: attend to them first? This seems the least important part. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
::::I dislike this particular introduction, because the very first thing this Misplaced Pages article says about Family First is that we're duplicious and dishonest.] 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:::::While I (as a FF member) agree that the comment on church links belongs in the lead, I agree that it's in too early, and doesn't belong in the first paragraph. I think it should be in the last paragraph in the lead. ] 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
:Can I point out my compromise was not my preferred option. Personally I believe Phanatical (you ''really'' could have chosen a better name) is right, and agree with Peter that somewhere in there we have to mention something. Add a Christian bit in the intro, just later on. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
::For 'heaven's sake', can we at least stop referring to it as the 'Michael compromise'? Phanatical, write up an alternative intro here on the talk page, we'll debate it, modify it, and put it up. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

== Centre-Right Party? ==

I've looked through hundreds of FFP policy, I would not call FFP a "Centre-right" party. I propose this classification be removed from the infobox, if only because an economic descriptor just can't be applied to a party built on social values. ] 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'll bite. ] is marginally a better fit than ]. They sure aren't ] of any kind... ] 05:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

::On social/economic issues (industrial relations, refugees, Iraq) they're generally to the "left" of the Liberals. On "personal morality" issues (for want of a better name) (abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia) they're well to the "right". That's why I dislike one word labels (as in the infobox) and would rather have it explained in a couple of sentences, but if we must have a label centre-right's as close as any - but it should be referenced. ] 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

:Saying that a party is to the "left" of the Liberals gives them a fair amount of room and still be on the "right". ] 13:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Depends how you view it, they can be either. Christian is best description of the party.--] 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
* It's a prime example (like One Nation) of why right/left labels are fairly useless. One Nation were so far left on economics they were giving the SA a run for their money, but you could never have called them social left in any way, and the media tended to label them "far right". The FFP is right wing on social and some economics (eg voting for WorkChoices and the Telstra sale) but left on others such as those given above. ] 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:It would seem these days, parties are labelled left or right based on their social, not economic policies. ] 15:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It can only be said on each individual policy/subject. Other than that its as accurate as comparing you to the average australian..... since you will be nothing like the average australia and the description will be totally misleading.--] 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:For the record, Family First voted AGAINST WorkChoices and the Sale of Telstra. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Platform plank on hunting? ==

Whats The FFP stance on hunting? Its not covered in their site? anyone seem anything on the subject on official release/doc etc?--] 13:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think we can address it at all in the article if we don't have a ] on their position. Has anybody done a search of platform statements and/or news coverage to see if this issue has been discussed? —''']''' (]) 14:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone had claimed it was pro hunting (That addition has been deleted by somone). I was wondering how they came to that conclusion. As I think all parties here in Aust would not have any official direct documents on the subject here, its not that big a topic here as in USA etc--] 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

== How can we break the edit war ==

Contrary to what is being asserted in the article history, I do not accept "Michael's compromise", but I have not edited because I am a FF member. Nor does Michael himself, it sounds like. So no way is there consensus yet on how to edit the lead. To move forward, I offer the following suggestions:
# All FF and Greens members refrain from editing the article, save for non-controversial things like fixing references and dates.
# Semi-protect, because non-registered users are engaging in the revert war.
# Other editors work out a compromise. I'm fairly confident that if the remaining active editors do this (i.e. Michael (right-leaning), Timeshift (left-leaning), and Rebecca (not sure)) then it will be reasonable.
# Again, I suggest that mentioning alleged church links at the END of the lead (i.e. in a 4th paragraph, not in the very 1st paragraph) is not only a reasonable compromise, but appropriate weight.
] 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:The '''Family First Party''' is a ] in ]. Its policies emphasise ] ].

:The party was founded in ] in time to contest the ], when former ] pastor ] became its first ], winning a seat in the ]. A second MLC, pharmaceutical executive ], was elected at the ].

:In the ] it contested seats all over Australia, generally exchanging ] with ] candidates (but in some seats exchanging preferences with the ]). At that election the party was successful in electing their first and at present only federal politician ], ] for ].

:Many of its candidates and members are from conservative Christian backgrounds, although the party itself is officially secular and eschews any religious labels.

:The paragraph above is where we need to include something that states—without alleging deception on the part of FF—that it draws its values / support / whatever from a particular community. Also without alleging any conspiracy theories. Also without a negative vibe. Edit away ''here''.

::] <sup>]</sup> 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Family First members shouldn't hold back from editing this article if Greens members seek to use it for propaganda purposes. ] 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::That's just stupid. That's warlike. Who's more the fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him? Sorry Phan, but just outlay a new intro here, get a nod for it, and we're set. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::How about the current sentence from the article, but shifting it to the position Michael suggests? (Many of its candidates and members are from conservative Christian backgrounds, although the party itself is officially secular and eschews any religious labels.) Does that have a negative vibe? It's the best way I've seen so far of putting where the party draws its support from without casting assertions on that. ] 09:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::I am tentatively *happy* for that (want more opinions; Peter?, Chris? Phan?), but would remove any secular whatever from the first para, so as not to double mention it. ] <sup>]</sup> 09:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Sounds fair enough to me, but the new sentence in the first paragraph sounds a bit gramatically strange. Something else to say they're socially conservative? ] 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Rebecca that it's the best wording, clear without being provocative. I would like to see it a little higher but I can live with it being further down the intro, seeing as it's spelt out in the appropriate section of the article.
::::::As for the strangeness of the first paragraph, (apart from that superflous apostrophe) I think it would be better to get rid of the word "mirror"; how about 'Its policies ''emphasise''...'? Nick 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::That's only one little grammatical cockup! ] <sup>]</sup> 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::::I think this new opening is reasonable. I don't like it, but it's an improvement on the constant reversion that some people here seem to wish to perpetuate. The following text is from my personal talk page, in response to Chris Maltby's ridiculous assertions, and I think sums up better than anything said here why Family First members are exasperated by the propaganda:
::::::::"Our agenda is family values - the same family values religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless others promote, the same family values the Chinese, Polish, Spanish, Lebanese and countless others have built their societies upon. If you want a Christian agenda, take a look at the ]. If you want an extremist agenda, look at ]. But if you want a party that will speak for the interests of Australian families, put Family First." ] 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::"Family Values" eh? Who doesn't support families - the trouble is that so-called family values have become a mask for what is elsewhere called the "Christian Right". I am honest about my affiliation with the Greens, and I am deeply suspicious of the motives of the Family First Party, but when it comes to mentioning the links with the more outlandish end of the Christian spectrum, I think I can be more dispassionate than the FF members who seem to get very flustered about it. I may be at a different part of the political spectrum on most issues, but in my discussions with ordinary voters of all kinds, there is no doubt in their minds that FF is essentially a Christian party. FF may find this problematic (or politically damaging) but it is nevertheless the reality. There's no point attempting to discredit this view by assertions that its some sort of Greens conspiracy. The only counter-argument so far been levelled is that Phanatical isn't a Christian - an that's useful to know, but anecdotal evidence of that kind is very weak. All the statistical evidence suggests that having an AoG background is a big bonus for "success" within FF, even though they are officially "secular". Until someone provides a rational explanation of that which fits in with the secular claim, it has to be considered as propaganda and balanced with the kind of words Michael and others have provided to meet WP standards. ] 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::Without getting into a discussion about the meaning of "family values", the simple fact is that the assertion that we are a Christian party is not only a misnomer, it's propaganda pure and simple. There is no such assertion that Family First is a Christian party except as perpetuated by politically-biased sources such as the Greens, and a justification that "My friends (at the Greens) said that Family First is a Christian Party, so obviously everybody thinks that" doesn't even meet the standard of balance of probabilities, much less the sort of encyclopaedic standard Misplaced Pages aspires to.] 11:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Petter Ballard you still want devoted Family First voters such as yourself to be able to edit the page? Thats not making the editing unbiased, as shown by your wanting to move the references to churches. Left/Right wing is all a matter of opinion so not everyone will be happy (I should be removed as cant catergorise it that way) should a carrot be classified as a mineral or animal? --] 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

:I never argued for removing church references, quite the opposite. I proposed that FF members AND Greens members refrain from editing the page except for bookkeeping. Alas, the suggestion has not been followed by others. ] 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

== Someone removed the stat showing just how many canidiates in NSW from same AOG Church ==

Well this has odviously been done by a Family Family voter who wants to hide the fact of the relationship with AOG and the political party. Can this reference please be added back in as its fact and shows the situtaion of AOG and Family First!--] 00:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Have reverted the deletion by Saldon-au and put back in the reference which had been deleted earlier. So its back in the condition that was agreed on in discussion over a month ago.--] 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

:I believe it is true, but I deleted the reference because it is a Misplaced Pages mirror site. ] 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

:Google helped me locate a reliable reference for the claim and I have added it to the article now. An article in the ] on September 24, 2004 by Mike Seccombe "". ] 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

== "gay rights" vs "same-sex issues" ==

Re .

Personally, I feel that "same sex issues" is just as, if not more so, accurate a description of the topic here. To me, there are some feelings with the title "gay rights" simply because there is debate as to whether they are actually "rights" (eg. "They have the right to marry, but they choose not to because marriage is between a man and a woman; they really want to change the definition of marriage."). I would prefer not to create a giant fight over that issue; it just seems that perhaps an argument of similar sort might start with the current revision, while the alternative title doesn't appear to be offensive to either side? I'm not changing it atm, but I wish to have input from other viewpoints. ] ] 23:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:Same-sex marriage makes sense. A marriage between two of the same sex. Same-sex issues is far more obscure. Does it mean issues between two of the same sex? An argument between them perhaps? ] is a well-known term. ] 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

::I know that I've heard it a lot, but I do find it amusing that ] is actually a redirect to ]. ] ] 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The section deals with "issues" other than "marriage", It is absurdly POV to suggest homosexuals have a "right" to adopt babies. Like Xiong says, it is far more neutral to describe this topic as an issue, rather than some unreferenced inaccurate "right". ] <sup> -(])</sup> 23:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:No, I agree with Timeshift here. "Same sex issues" is a vague, unhelpful description, while "Gay rights" is an established subject. It is irrelevant whether you believe they should be rights or not, but that these issues have commonly been discussed within the context of "Gay rights". ] 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:: A title that is meaningful to a passer-by is the most critical element here. "Gay rights" - whether or not one agrees they are or should be rights - is the correct title. "Same sex issues" is pretty meaningless - issues with one's own sex? That could be a brawl down at the bar which happens to consist entirely of men. Prester John's comment above really does give away his own "absurd POV" - what do one's opinions on the issue have to do with ] an encyclopaedia should say about it? ] 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:::Although I think that "same sex" is about as common and recognizable as "gay rights", I do somewhat see your points. If the article stood as PJ had put it, I would not be convinced enough to change it, but I am not convinced enough to change it now, either. Again, I am most definitely not trying to make a statement about my opinions regarding this issue (if you are confused on that). I am merely pointing out an argument; it is irrelevant whether I believe it or am playing devil's advocate. ] ] 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I would also note that anyone calling each other "absurdly POV" is not exactly keep ]. We *can* deal with this calmly, please. No need to be excited. ] ] 23:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not one of the references included in the section mentions "Rights", yet somehow it seems to be given prominence in the title for the spurious reason that "issues" is vague or unhelpful. Given that society at large (Western and Eastern) has determined that gays have no "Right" to marry it seems odd to declare this "Right" as fact. Why is it included as the title of the section when the references mention nothing of "Rights"? ] <sup> -(])</sup> 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

:Clarification: the article does, but the references do not (trusting John on the latter part). ] ] 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

::"rights" doesn't need a reference - and gay rights, or a lack of, is subjective. "rights" doesn't mean it's their right, it means it's about their right to the rights. Two slightly different meanings. I'd like to clarify for discussion that PJ was a ] MP. ] 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:09, 14 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family First Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconAustralia: Politics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconFamily First Party is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.
WikiProject iconPolitics: Political parties
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEnvironment Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Election candidate controversies

Andrew Quah

Someone has deleted the Andrew Quah scandal from this article, twice! For those not familiar, the Family First candidate, Andrew Quah, stepped down amid scandal after nude photos of him appeared on gay websites around Australia. He also admitted that he looks at porn. This is vitally relevant, considering his party, Family First, is anti-porn as one of its main policies.

For those who want to see what was deleted from the article, here's the diff of the deletion. Here's the SMH news story, and for those who don't think it's notable, here's the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald, and the Family First story is the #1 federal election story.
Other coverage at News.com.au, ABC News, Herald Sun and Fairfax New Zealand, and even Crikey! is covering it.--Lester 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sick of having to repeat this.
Kevin Rudd had his drinky drinky shenanigans, but the editors come to a consensus that it was irrelevant to his life and omitted it from his page. I believe they agreed to wait a month and see if the media still went on about it, as a test for its relevancy. The media did not, and nothing was put in.
So the same should the FF article be treated. Every little bit of media controversy (I hate that word so much thanks to Misplaced Pages) does not deserve a paragraph, sentence or word on here. Michael 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not against the inclusion of Rudd / porn either. However, the Family First situation is very different, for three reasons. First, Rudd didn't resign or get expelled. Second, Family First's main platform is anti-porn, and here's one of their "anti-porn" candidates admitting he looks at porn, and appearing in porn himself. And third, this happened mid-way through the election campaign! If any candidate from any party is expelled or resigns amid scandal during an election campaign, then that is very big news and very notable. The fact that this guy was doing the activities he was campaigning against, makes it more notable.--Lester 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this, its certainly notable Muzzamo 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the way you titled the heading, "porn scandal rocks Family First", gives away any notion of neutrality on your part. I'm sure there have been plenty of "scandals" (cringe), "controversies" (cringe) and the like throughout the histories of all the parties, but these have not been mentioned. This is a small incident which will be gone very soon. It is not a Labor split or the breakup of the conservatives. Michael 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Well should this content be perhaps added to Australian federal election, 2007? Surely the dumping of a candidate mid-campaign is fitting content for the "The campaign" section of that article? --Stormie 01:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Quah had no chance of winning his seat though. FFP only has a chance in the senate. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Pretty useless tattle. And this coming from a guy that acutally blocked Andrew Quah's wikipedia account once. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that Andrew Quah was a Wikipedian! I think that any candidate from any party that resigns in scandal mid-way through an election campaign is notable. For example, the John Howard article has commentary about all the campaign issues of each election, though I don't think there were any scandals like this. The nature of the scandal goes to the very heart of Family First.Lester 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Phanatical (talk · contribs)Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Minor party drops minor candidate who had zero chance of winning a seat, to keep its image clean. Barely notable. If FF has kept him it might have been more notable. I notice a massive double standard here compared to Rudd, an incident which will be with him throughout his career. Peter Ballard 02:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It's an interesting argument that "he had no chance to win", therefore it doesn't matter. With Labor preferences now headed to the Greens, some commentators have said that none in Family First have much chance to win. Should we also stop writing about John Howard, because he hasn't got much chance to win (according to polls, anyway). The fact is that this guy, Andrew Quah, was standing for office. He was the Family First official who authorised all of Family First's 2007 election material, so to say he was a minor nobody is not correct.--Lester 03:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Only the local Sydney papers had photos (unlike Rudd). I bet this will lost even last 24 hours. AT least the Rudd thing was there in the morning, midday and evening news. Will this make the evening news? I doubt it. Probably some campaign rally will be on the newss tongiht. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Again on the double standard: party leader gets drunk, goes to strip club, retains position, compared with candidate for unwinnable seat who poses nude and looks up porn. The leader of a party gets no mention (and rightly so) but for some reason the candidate gets several paragraphs. Bizarre. Michael 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not notable in the long term. We should allow time for the dust to settle to gauge how this relates to the long term. Lester's short bus logic is also quite apparent yet again. He seems to think a party sacking someone for violating thier principles is somehow a "scandal". Prester John 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that it would fall under qualified priviledge to reproduce this matter on the article. The people who have been mentioning the similaritiy with the Kevin Rudd Stripper scenario and the failure to reproduce that information on his article are missing the point that Family First runs on a platform of social conservative values. This (if it is true, for I didn't hear anything about it in the news) is a fundamental contradiction of their platform and values and warrants inclusion for that purpose alone. Doktor Waterhouse 06:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, which is why they sacked him, because they ddemed him to be out of line with their ethos. If they kept him it would be notable, or if he was a key figure in the party, then it would be notable, but he isn't. Do we also include the ALP candidate forO'Connor bagging Rudd in his university newspaper shock-jock column? No. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It would also be more notable if Mr Quah was harping on about the evil of porn, but since he is not, there is no hypocrisy on his part either (unless other stuff comes to light). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I am persuaded that it should not be included. Doktor Waterhouse 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be a good point if the man in question was just a regular guy on the street who always wanted to be a porn star and suddenly got his wish. But not so. Andrew Quah was an anti-porn campaigner. He stood for office, not as an independent, but as a representative of the anti-porn party. Not only that, but Family First's anti-porn election campaign material, including leaflets and website, was signed and authorised by Andrew Quah. His name is at the bottom of Family First's material, and is the signing authority for submission to the Australian Electoral Commission. He authorised the FF anti-porn campaign. So, for Family First's campaign authoriser to be so heavily into porn himself is very significant. The amount of media coverage that the Andrew Quah saga has received so far is a reasonable percentage of the total media coverage that Family First has ever got. I'm against the notion that we should delay any mention of the Andrew Quah scandal for another month (ie. until after the election). Family First's election schedule should have no influence on the article.Lester 20:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Lester has a point, by authorising those pamphlets Quah was harping on about the evils of porn. It's not like Rudd visiting the strip club because closing stip clubs is not a major election plank of the ALP. But ask yourself, if The Greens disendorsed a candidate they found to be a Gunns boardmember, wouldn't that be noteworthy? That's what we're dealing with here.
However, we do need to understand that this will not remain an important event in the party's history. It will blow over and as such probably shouldn't remain on the party's page. So, I propose that this paragraph go on Australian_federal_election,_2007 instead.Nick 00:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem I have with Lester's analysis - that Quah's position inside FF is significant - is that the major news reports (at least the ones I've seen) do not mention it, much less dwell on it. They simply call him a candidate and a member of the NSW executive. I will not object to a mention of it (that it happened, not of silly hyperbole like calling it a scandal). But really, what's this doing in an encyclopedia? Who will care in a week's time, let alone a few years? Peter Ballard 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Only Lester and his inaccurate arguments will care. Lester seems determined to label this guy as "heavily" into porn and a hypocrite for advancing Family Firsts policies. As far as I can tell the FF policy seems to be related to access to porn for minors. The article and references even go as far to say that FF believe that adults have the right to opt out of their proposed blocking software. In other words FF advocate NO porn for the under 18's and freedom to view for those above 18. Is Andrew not an adult and above 18? Why is it hypocritical to advocate this FF policy while viewing porn? Lester also seems to homophobicaly throw the word "gay" around as if there is something wrong that. Prester John 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

To User:Prester John, please read Misplaced Pages:Civility and think about that before accusing anyone of being "homophobic". It was the news articles on Andrew Quah that said his images were posted on gay websites. Nobody said there was anything wrong with being gay, or the websites.
Here is Family First's policy to ban internet pornography
Family First is a minor party, so some may argue that everything to do with FF is minor news. However, in the scale of Family First events, the Andrew Quah incident is the biggest news event the party has ever had in its history. From TV News Canada to South Africa to the Qatar Gulf Times. It's the most widespread coverage that Family First has ever received on any issue.--Lester 22:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
"Biggest ever"? You're not in SA or Vic I assume, where FF actually have elected members and are in serious news stories from time to time. I can imagine them not really being on the radar in other states. As for the international coverage, well so did the Kevin Rudd earwax story. Doesn't make it significant. (Which doesn't mean I'd oppose a brief mention, as I've said above). Peter Ballard 00:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Peter. Well, in terms of widespread international coverage, I think it's the biggest story involving Family First. I note that the Australian Democrats entry carries mention of the Andrew Bartlett Vs Jeannie Ferris drunken scuffle, and it's mentioned again on both Bartlett & Ferris' biography pages. People are not only interested in the incident, but also how the party deals with the one involved. In Bartlett's case, they let him stay on, despite very damaging video of him shaking Ferris.--Lester 04:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Bartlett was the leader of a party which at the time held the balance of power in the Senate with 8 senators. FFP has one senator who does not have the balance of power and is relevant only when BArnaby Joyce refuses to tow the line. Bartlett's act was done on a national stage in the senate, attacking another senator. Moreover, Quah is not even in the top 10 FFP public figures. What Quah does in his own time is not so important as public behaviour, and secondly he didnt infringe on anybody else by stripping off either. The video of bartlett was on the news on TV and newspapers - did you see Quah's groin on TV ??? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Does The Chaser count? Because they showed much more than I wanted to see. Nick 13:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick81 (talk • contribs)
OH, . . .. .. I didn't know that, but Chaser isn't really serious stuff is it? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care about this either way (as can be noticed by my lack of contributions on this subject) but it is interesting to note, that only once he was forced out of the FFP, did the conservative wikipedians then, and only then, acknowledge, that if he remained in the FFP, it would have been a different story. Funny how that point wasn't raised when he was in the FFP. Just an observation. Timeshift 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

eh? By the time the story broke, he had already been kicked out, so how could we have possibly raised the point earlier? Peter Ballard 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. My point stands though. I'm sure if he was still in the party, the 'but he's not in the party' line anymore wouldn't be used. But that's already too many words for a subject I have no particular interest in. Timeshift 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ben Jacobsen

I can't believe there's another one! University lecturer Ben Jacobsen, after attacking the sexuality of his Liberal rival, later apologised after he admitted to downloading porn. News Ltd story. If this keeps going, we'll have to turn it into a list!--Lester 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

...5 years ago. Peter Ballard 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It depends on which part of the article is the most relevant part. According to the article, Family First's Ben Jacobsen "attacked" his opposing candidate over her sexuality, very recently. I think many people would be interested to know this. As for the porn, Jacobsen apparently gave up his online porno downloading 5 years ago, but only admitted his previous porn usage a few days ago. The article says FF campaigns on an anti-porn platform. Cheers,--Lester 11:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Scores strip club 5 years ago, earwax 10 years ago. Point being? (I'm not advocating inclusion, just pointing out the mixed messages being received...) Timeshift (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's vitally important that Ben Jacobsen's digressions be included in the article. Particularly his attack on a political opponent over the issue of sexuality. I think there are many people in the community who would be interested to know this, and it would definitely affect whether or not they vote for him.--Lester 02:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously believe that WP will determine whether people will vote for Ben Jacobsen? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think the Wiki article will affect voting. I was referring to the behaviour or Mr Jacobsen, which was covered widely in the news media. Regards, Lester 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
His attack was quite bizarre, but nevertheless I think it's borderline for noteworthiness. (There are loose cannons in all parties, especially when it comes to minor party people). I won't object if it's written up neutrally. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

New section proposed : 2007 federal election

This article does need appropriate mention of the above-mentioned candidate controversies. They are notable events because of the contradiction of official party policy that they represent. I think they might be best included in a section titled "2007 federal election" which would also detail the chronology of notable actions, policy releases and so on. --Brendan 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a section to encompass these events. There was previously a section called Controversy, which is pretty common in Wiki articles..--Lester 11:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see Controversy sections as the better way to write encyclopedic content. Among other things, they present risks of undue weight and article bias. Wherever possible and reasonable, these should be avoided in favour of incorporating such material into the broader context, narrative and chronology of the article. For example, these events are particularly notable because they relate to election candidates during a campaign. If they had just been ordinary FF members, outside of an election campaign, there wouldn't be much worth including her. In short, we need to contextualise issues neutrally and appropriately, avoiding sensationalism. --Brendan 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sterilisation v. Sensationalism

It is clear that there are pro- and anti-FF elements each trying to impose their own bias on this article. Quite predictable and understandable. My 2 cents: 1) Can't say that I'm a huge fan of "Controversy" sections myself, and I would tend to agree with Brendan's comments above. 2) I believe the issues discussed above (particularly Andrew Quah) should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but there is no need to be sensationalist about it. The behaviour of particular FF candidates during the election was relevant and newsworthy at the time, and I consider it to be noteworthy now. 3) "Nobody will care in ..." I regard this sort of argument to be... well, it's not really an argument at all, is it? It's an individual opinion, and even if it turned out to be true it's hardly relevant now - the same could be said of just about anything. "In a few years time nobody will care about this year's Olympic Games, so we should not mention them. At all." 4) Anecdotally, the Andrew Quah incident is one of the few things I actually remember about FF's campaign. That and someone else from the party telling a lesbian she was a witch who should be burned??? (Memory a bit hazy over details of that one.) 5) A suggestion for wording re Andrew Quah: "During the 2007 election campaign it was revealed that nude photos of Family First candidate Andrew Quah had been posted on the Internet. Quah also admitted to viewing pornography online, despite authorising the party's anti-pornography election material. He was subsequently expelled from the party." PollyWaffler (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As I think I said above, a neutrally written note on Andrew Quah (or on the "burn the lesbians" idiot) is OK, and what you suggest is fine. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have added this to the 2007 election section. Haven't yet found a solid reference to his authorisation of election material, though...? PollyWaffler (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
...and now it's gone again. Blnguyen - care to justify your revert? Point to policy or guideline? (I would, of course, have been happy to leave out the un-cited part about him authorising election material...) PollyWaffler (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

References v External Links

I removed these from the External Links section per WP:EL. They may prove more useful as references for article content. Feel free to add more. This article needs more references and content. --Brendan 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Peter Ballard, I note you re-added the Family First Media blog to External Links. Misplaced Pages is not a repository of links. WP:EL calls for minimalism and, in section Links to be avoided, says to exclude "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority". The blog is anonymous, not an official blog of the party and appears to have not been updated since October 2006. The link should remain here on the talkpage (added above), so editors may access that blog to obtain the articles linked there as references for expanded content in this Wiki article, while keeping the article well within WP:EL and WP:NOT. --Brendan 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are "links normally to be avoided" (my emphasis). This particular blog is an apparently neutral and uncommented collection of news articles, and as such I thought it improved the article, and so deserved inclusion on the basis of WP:Ignore All Rules. However, since it hasn't been updated for a year, it's not as useful anymore and I don't mind dropping it. (I quickly checked, saw "October", and just assumed it was "October 2007"). Peter Ballard 09:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Policy references

I don't see the problem with "sources affiliated with the subject of this article" when we're talking about the policies of a political party taken from that party's site? 203.17.70.161 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Election Results section

Someone added a very very long section about election results over the years. It seems to be creeping higher to the top of the article each time I see it. At the very least, it should be at the bottom of the article (if it should be there at all). At the moment, it is just serving to push more relevant information about what the party stands for out of view.Lester 19:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the Election Results section be deleted. Election results are covered elsewhere in Misplaced Pages, and are superfluous and distracting in this article.--Lester 02:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Certainly a history section is important, and election results are a big part of that history. I don't think FF results are easily found elsewhere, and this page is as good a place as any to summarise them. Perhaps there's a little much detail, but in general I think it should stay, perhaps renamed as "history". Peter Ballard 03:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted?

Senator Steve Fielding stated in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election that a Labor-Greens Senate would deliver "drug shooting galleries in your street".

Do we not comment on what Senators say anymore? Timeshift (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It was in a section titled "Policies". That quote doesn't sound like a policy statement to me. Nick 14:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It was under the section of drugs. Where do you propose it does fit then? Or is that the key here, the page has been designed as such that controversial things like this have no current place in the article... Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Fielding's comment was a pretty outlandish statement that misrepresents his political opponents, though I would support its inclusion in the article. However, I think it should say "Senator Steve Fielding claimed that...". It's a pity that most of the controversy has been cleaned from this article.--Lester 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The drugs section is under the policies heading, so it should be about drug policies. You could try starting a new section, something like "Criticisms of other parties' policies". It could be controversial but not entirely inappropriate (after all, new parties only arise because they perceive flaws in the existing parties). Nick 00:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
And I wonder how long that section would last? ;-) Timeshift (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If it didn't last, it would be because that particular quote misrepresents the other parties' policies and uses emotive language. ("In your street", wtf is that?)
But I think a section on FF vs Greens would be ok if it could be couched in neutral language. cf Fred Nile on the Greens. Nick 00:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the quote. Fielding stated that a Labor-Greens senate would "deliver drug shooting galleries in your street". I agree with wtf, it's a very strange comment indeed. Timeshift (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nick, by the same reasoning, everything belongs in "criticism of other parties". Drug's policy is as good as any place to put Fielding's comment. I don't care either way if it goes in. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it needs a 'Controversy' heading, which existed once before in an earlier version of this article, but was later deleted. Under that heading, you could include all those things that have trouble fitting elsewhere. I mean, what's the use of a Misplaced Pages article if it can only state party policy? We may as well go to the Family First website to get that.Lester 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree there is too much regurgitating of party policy, I just think a "Controversy" section is the wrong way to do it. So on each section under policy, put what they've actually done, and where that has been controverial or notworthy, rather than just (sometimes outdated) references to FF policy . Peter Ballard (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It should be about views and actions, not just actions. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
True. I was thinking of Industrial Relations, where what they've said is pretty vague, so IMHO it's better to note how Fielding voted on WorkChoices. On some other issues, their views are pretty clear. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Noteable?

Family First refuses preference swap with lesbians in 2004. This is a lower level than policy as it is an exclusion of preferencing a Liberal MP based on sexuality, but will swap preferences with a Liberal MP who publicly confessed to an affair while his wife was pregnant with twins. Timeshift (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity template

I came across this template, and as FFP was in it I was going to add it, but then realised some may have issues, so i'm querying here first. Timeshift (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments, added. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem appropriate to me. c.Marsh b.Lillee (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It takes more than that to defend a revert. Please give rational reasons why you chose to revert after there was no protest to the proposal added nine days ago? Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that, going by the press release quoted in the "Religious affiliation" section of this article, that if Family First is not officially affilated with any Christian church, it's probably not appropriate that it be on that template, or that that template be on this article. It's basically promoting the POV that religion is the most significant aspect of the party - a POV that I happen to largely agree with, but which I don't think is appropriate for a Misplaced Pages article. --Stormie (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
See my comments at Template talk:Christianity in Australia. That's where I think it should be thrashed out - let's determine first if it belongs in the Template. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WA Family First Party

Interesting that the WA Family First Party has recently been formed. Also that it is an alliance between ex Liberal Party and ex One Nation officials (ABC story).--Lester 06:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but as far as I can see their only MP is ex Liberal Dan Sullivan (politician). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Convergence to format of Liberal Party of Australia format

If anybody opposses doing so, please state your comments here (or if they believe the Liberal Party should have their policies stated on the page).-203.122.240.136 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean by deleting all the policy section? I think a better model is the Australian Greens article, which does define policy (though in less detail than here). Small parties like Greens and FF tend to be easier to define by policy than the major parties, so it's more appropriate to put policy on their WP pages. (Usual disclaimer: I'm a FF member). Peter Ballard (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are particular features on the Lib page that you'd like on the FFP page, please state what so it can be discussed. Suggesting a blanket change won't get very far. Timeshift (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent activity

As a FF member I'm trying my hardest to avoid editing this article, but I think the latest round of anon edits should be blanket reverted, because there's too much silliness mixed in with what might be useful. Looking at the diffs since 5-Aug, I see several "what the" edits:

  • All sorts of strange stuff in the policial ideaology box, including Abolitionism (who isn't) and Fiscal conservatism (not an FF policy);
  • The Category:Christian political parties cat has been added (highly contentious);
  • "See also" Liberal Party (what the?);
  • "See also" US Republican party, a "conservative Christian party" (what the?);
  • an uncited and dubious list of "key persons", both in the lead and in the article body.

Please revert the lot, someone. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent edits that were not supported by the cited references and cleaned up some other links. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 03:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Re Fiscal conservatism, the national leader Bob Day contends that 'someone has undone the reference to Family First being economically conservative. If low taxes, free markets and property rights aren’t examples of economic conservatism I don’t know what is. Our Tax Policy, Employment Policy and Small Business Policy all point to economic conservatism. The Chairman of Family First (me) is a Member of the internationally renowned Mont Pelerin Society a pillar of economic conservatism.' - Can the ref be left alone please Crumpola (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ultra-Conservative Description

FF certainly has conservative policies, some of which can be described as 'Family Friendly' to the expense of 'Single' Australians. However the 'Ultra-Conservative' label is a as misinformed as calling the Labor party 'Ultra-Socialist'. They are a conservative party. No more and no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.23.9 (talk) 04:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Conservative" is more a term that is appropriate for middle-ground parties (like the Liberal Party, for example). FF's policies are not just about "conserving" the society and policies we have now. Their polices are actually about reverting society back to a previous time in Australia's history (or perhaps even more extreme than that). Therefore, it's not enough to call them "conservative", the most appropriate description would be at least "very conservative" or similar. I remember that one of the MP's from another party described FF as a "very extreme political party". So there are sources available to justify describing them as extreme.
Well, dig them up and share your proposed improvements for the article here. (And please sign your posts with four tildes - that's the ~ character - so that your new posts get a signature and timestamp. I've just given that one an indent.) HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Religious affiliation

OK. We have a revert war going on. It's time for a mature discussion on this.

The reality as it appears to me would be that the party has no formal links to a church, but the vast majority (if not all) of its members would be very conservative Christians, the majority of them being Assembly of God members. I see no problem with that being reported, so long as sound references can be found. It should not be embarrassing to anybody.

I'm certainly not aware of any formal connection between the party and a church, and the article should not suggest this, unless anyone can find a source that says otherwise.

So, let's stop the silly revert war and come up with reasonable words. Please use mine above as a starting point if you like. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Does anyone know anything about the logo (its origins, design)? While it presents a stylized representation of Australia, it rather looks like a mitre. Poldy Bloom (talk) 22:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The logo you are referring to is obsolete. It was discontinued quite some time ago. Any resemblance to a mitre was purely coincidental. Maryogden (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes the party "far right"

Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A foolish desire among some people for simplistic descriptors in Infoboxes. I'd be happy to see it removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been a few days now with no further comment. I shall boldly remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Right-wing is fair. They are well to the right of the Liberals, especially under Day's leadership.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, but it's opinion, so should not be included. We've been over the whole left/right labels many times - there is no consensus for them to remain. Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Offensive Bias

As a Christian, I find the way this party is referred to as "Christian" in the article to be extremely offensive. I don't know the best way to rewrite the article to differentiate between the fact that they believe themselves to be Christian and the fact that there are many of us Christians out here that are offended by their actions. As a Christian myself, I can categorically say that they do not represent a single Christian value of mine and that they actively work against all of my Christian values!

Just because a group believe they are Christian does not mean they represent everyone else thinks the same thing. Just because they claim a Christian leaning in their speeches does not make them Christian any more than Hitler making Christian statements in his speeches made him Christian.

If we want Misplaced Pages to be a factual, unbiased information source, the fact that so many of us Christians are offended by these guys should be mentioned at least.

That would be the No true Scotsman fallacy. If you can find reliable sources claiming that many (or some, or most, or whatever) Australian Christians disagree so strongly with Family First, then feel free to add it! 118.209.45.194 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, while I clearly understand your point, you would need an independent source describing the problem. They day all Christians agree on what defines a Christian our life here will be made a lot easier. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Family first overload

Hi, I'm not really a Wikipedian, but I find this page very difficult to read and would suggest that it be edited to have less of an overload of Family First. The words appear 140 times in the page and I find it excessive. Almost every sentence starts with Family First. No offense to the author, but this article is simply badly written because it's horribly repetitive. The sentences also start with "Family first believes X" or "Family first supports Y" way too much. One example: "Family First believes that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was wrong because diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted, but that having participated in that invasion Australia is now obliged to protect Iraqis and Australians in Iraq through a military presence." Why not: "Family First opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq because diplomatic avenues had not been exhausted, but ,having participated in that invasion, Australia is now obliged to protect Iraqis and Australians in Iraq through a military presence." FritsVanpreutenbeen (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully not an edit war over FFP's payments to Glenn Druery

"he was also receiving paycheques worth thousands of dollars a month from Family First and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party." and "Druery was also being paid by Family First in Victoria and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party in Queensland about $5,000 a month each for up to six months.".

Firstly editor User_talk:Bell20 removed the statement saying it wasn't in the reference. I reverted it and left a message on said user's talkpage with the contents of both refs to back it up. Then they removed the statement again saying only shooters and fishers and not family first? Either Bell20 didn't read it, again, or they just don't want it on this page. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, on their talkpage. "That is incorrect. Whoever sourced that news report got it wrong.". Seems like a WP:COI to me with no evidence to back up their claims. Timeshift (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh, interesting news about Druery being paid, though I guess he wasn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart. I'd say you're definitely in the right – hard to argue with references from the ABC, News Corp, and Fairfax. You can probably slip an "allegedly" or a "reportedly" somewhere in there if it becomes an issue. IgnorantArmies 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
See their talkpage - they're claiming i'm the one with the COI, lol! I think they've got the message though - no response since. Always interesting to know who's putting up the Minor Party Alliance preference trading funding though. Sports and Motoring got elected without known payments to Druery. FFP got a candidate elected and have paid money to Druery. FFP are the only ones who've both paid Druery and have been successful in electing a Senator candidate from the Minor Party Alliance, that we know of/have reliably sourced. So it's definately noteable :) Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Removed issue tags

I've removed a fly-by tag added yesterday to the head of the article for advert, and i've also removed a year-old tag in the policies section. Tags are meant to be used as short-term indicators that there are issues that require rectification, and should only be added once a discussion has been started on the talk page. Fly-by and long-term tagging without talkpage discussion is not how it's supposed to be used. If there are issues, raise them here or even better, fix them! Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Third party sources

The article has very few. This means that it is written completely based on primary sources, which means that it is essentially a PR piece. Zambelo; talk 20:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Family First Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—Talk to my owner:Online 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Family First Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Election

I've reverted the edits relating to Bob Day - Senate results will not be confirmed for several weeks so we should wait until the AEC declare the composition of the new Senate. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Family First Party. 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:

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) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Family First Party. 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:

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) 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: