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 Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It doesn't seem appropriate to me. c.Marsh b.Lillee ( talk) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (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 ( ABC story).-- Lester 06:23, 23 June 2008 (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).- 203.122.240.136 ( talk) 07:46, 31 July 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 ( talk) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=98&libID=120When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It doesn't seem appropriate to me. c.Marsh b.Lillee ( talk) 05:32, 19 June 2008 (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 ( ABC story).-- Lester 06:23, 23 June 2008 (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).- 203.122.240.136 ( talk) 07:46, 31 July 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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Just curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 ( talk) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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.
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=98&libID=120When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)