Talk:Family First Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Election candidate controversies[edit]

Andrew Quah[edit]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia) does not deserve a paragraph, sentence or word on here. Michael talk 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with this, its certainly notable Muzzamo 23:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 talk 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Phanatical (talk · contribs)Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 talk 04:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 -(Talk to the Hand) 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Good point. I am persuaded that it should not be included. Doktor Waterhouse 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 -(Talk to the Hand) 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Prester John, please read Wikipedia: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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ben Jacobsen[edit]

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)[reply]

...5 years ago. Peter Ballard 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Do you seriously believe that WP will determine whether people will vote for Ben Jacobsen? Peter Ballard (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

New section proposed : 2007 federal election[edit]

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 [ contribs ] 12:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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 [ contribs ] 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterilisation v. Sensationalism[edit]

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 [some amount of time]..." 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]

References v External Links[edit]

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 [ contribs ] 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Peter Ballard, I note you re-added the Family First Media blog to External Links. Wikipedia 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 [ contribs ] 03:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Policy references[edit]

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)[reply]

Election Results section[edit]

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)[reply]

I propose that the Election Results section be deleted. Election results are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and are superfluous and distracting in this article.--Lester 02:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Reverted?[edit]

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".[1]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It should be about views and actions, not just actions. Timeshift (talk) 00:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Noteable?[edit]

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)[reply]

Christianity template[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia article. --Stormie (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

WA Family First Party[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Convergence to format of Liberal Party of Australia format[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Recent activity[edit]

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,[2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ultra-Conservative Description[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Religious affiliation[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What makes the party "far right"[edit]

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

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)[reply]
It's been a few days now with no further comment. I shall boldly remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Offensive Bias[edit]

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Family first overload[edit]

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)[reply]

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

"he was also receiving paycheques worth thousands of dollars a month from Family First and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party."[3] 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."[4].

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Removed issue tags[edit]

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)[reply]

Third party sources[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Election[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Family_First_Party&oldid=1207177411"