![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know how big Assemblies of God is in Australia?
Currently over 190,000 souls that have been saved-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"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."
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.
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).
I've also renamed "Attitudes towards other community groups" to "Sexual and religious attitudes", since that seems a better descriptor of the section. -- Calair 00:15, 18 Oct 2004 (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. FloydPink 00:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And these observations are just from the first two paras. FloydPink 00:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In a
Radio National interview, 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.
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. -- Calair 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Sexual and religious attitudes":
imho, that last sentence that I have put in bold is pure POV editorialising. I removed it previously [3], but User:ShaneKing added it back in [4], so, rather than delete it again, I throw it open to you all: is it an appropriate comment for a Wikipedia article? — Stormie 04:42, Oct 19, 2004 (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.
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.
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."
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. - Aaron Hill 11:43, Oct 19, 2004 (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. Adam 00:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Without wanting to be too partisan, Nile is widely regarded in both political and church circles as decent but an old fool. Adam 05:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are there any outstanding POV issues now, or can we remove the tag? -- Calair 04:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From the '2004 Election' section:
The party agreed to share House of Representatives preferences with the Liberal-National Coalition at the 2004 election [6] ( 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).
From the 'Gay Rights' section:
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.
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? -- Calair 04:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
-- 203.87.127.18 09:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)==Snideness==
the Assemblies of God website was down for maintenance for a considerable period, coincidentally making it difficult to verify the affiliations of many candidates.
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. -- Calair 23:23, 10 August 2005 (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.
Alex Law 08:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Alex you make a very good point, 11 out of 23 candidates from the AoG windsor church, how manu others are from AoG churches? 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.
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
If people have a reason this FACT should not be on Wiki please explain, otherwise it should stay, so please do not remove it.
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. Slac speak up! 03:26, 13 March 2006 (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-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 . Ashmoo 07:00, 28 March 2006 (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. Ambi 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The last para of the Pornography section smacks of Original Research. Is there a citeable 3rd party that made the link between the 93% and 75% figures and the suspicions of push-polling. If not, it needs to be removed. Ashmoo 07:21, 22 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.
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. Phanatical 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see the figures on the candidates, how many are christian, and how many are Assembly members?-- Polygamist times 4 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The anti-Evans web site is a geocities web site. Should we be linking to that kind of site? Andjam 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading Barnaby Joyce, 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".
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 Family First Party. Timeshift 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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). -- Robert Merkel 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. Xtra 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is the paragraph on Dennis Hood + Creationism duplicated from the Dennis Hood 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? Rocksong 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this following section contains a huge amount of OR.
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. Recurring dreams 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, on top of the problems associated with people linking to their own sites; as per WP:SPS, self-published blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, with some exceptions not applicable here. -- Calair 03:09, 26 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:
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:
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.-- Baliset 13:53, 28 July 2007
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)
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 -- 203.87.127.18 11:33, 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?-- 203.87.127.18 11:42, 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?-- 203.87.127.18 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.-- 203.87.127.18 12:57, 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.-- 203.87.127.18 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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.-- 203.87.127.18 11:24, 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. Chrismaltby 02:27, 30 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?-- 203.87.127.18 11:18, 31 July 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 ( talk • contribs).
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/wiki/Pro_Life-- 203.87.127.18 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I have added an opposing opinon with reference to the article above, did you read it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 ( talk • contribs).
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. Rebecca 11:38, 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-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does one policy start
According to their web site, Family First say
The rest say
Family First and dont mention their website-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Polygamy4 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. Phanatical 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?-- 203.192.92.73 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.-- 203.192.92.73 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!-- Polygamistx4 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lead section (i.e. before the Table of Contents) needs a short paragraph on what FF stands for (See Australian Greens 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. Peter Ballard 12:54, 20 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?-- 203.192.92.73 13:01, 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... Chrismaltby 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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. 58.107.67.193 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Depends how you view it, they can be either. Christian is best description of the party.-- 203.192.92.73 12:35, 28 August 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.-- Polygamist times 4 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Whats The FFP stance on hunting? Its not covered in their site? anyone seem anything on the subject on official release/doc etc?-- Polygamist times 4 13:59, 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-- Polygamist times 4 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
Peter Ballard 05:56, 7 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? -- Polygamistx4 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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!-- Polygamistx4 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.-- Polygamistx4 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Re here.
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. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:28, 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". Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:38, 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"? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In all the editing documented above (which I largely agree with) we lost the important fact that FF use candidate positions on sexuality issues in deciding voting tickets. Restored in a minimal form hopefully in keeping with article style. Chrismaltby 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, the article as it stood claimed "several newspapers" were of the opinion and then cited a single source. Maybe you should reread WP:SYNTH. I did not assert "that only a single reporter drew attention to it". That is in fact a bald faced lie and assertion of gaming is a violation WP:AGF. Poor form really. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever... the edit inspired a look at the record and there's a wealth of choices for citation. Chrismaltby 04:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Made change proposed above after allowing reasonable time for dissent. Shame we can't fix the cringe-making grammar of the final quote from FF policy - is that a double, triple or quadruple negative? Chrismaltby 09:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please talk here before reverting me.
I have trimmed this section significantly. For a party that has almost nothing to do with gay rights, a section that large is odd, off-balance, and out of proportion to the rest of the article. It swayed from attacking FF over their policies, to showing off their "family friendly" policies, to giving a brief history of their history towards homosexuals. It is a subsection of the policy section, nothing more, so I've trimmed it to the bare-bone to keep it in line and in proportion to the rest of the article; surely this is enough and will stop the bickering over names and minor details. Michael talk 03:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Under the Policies section their is this statement
"You don't want to know... but a complete list of Family First's declared policies may be found on their website[11]." Chris talk October 23, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuzyk ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was my cited addition on this removed? People are generally being too protective and controlling as to what appears on this page lately. Stop being so sensitive and insecure about your own party. Timeshift 16:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I begin this discussion after noticing that the information about the South Australian bill, called The Statues Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill, has been deleted from the article. Here's the diff. This bill was aimed at giving equality to same-sex couples. For anyone interested in a reference, the South Australian parliament Hansard shows where the parties stand on the issue. Hansard link. Do a browser word search for the words: Family First will oppose the amendments, and it will take you to the relevant text. Also, here's a NineMSN story before the bill was passed, indicating previous FF support. Thanks, Lester 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC) What makes this unique is the party's position/attitudes on the LGBT community, and yet here we have this FFP candidate batting for and with guys. It reminds me of the whole gay scandal inside the Republican Party a short while ago... but i'm not going to fight to have it added, i'll allow those who are sensitive over this article to continue. Timeshift 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Does anyone know how big Assemblies of God is in Australia?
Currently over 190,000 souls that have been saved-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"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."
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.
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).
I've also renamed "Attitudes towards other community groups" to "Sexual and religious attitudes", since that seems a better descriptor of the section. -- Calair 00:15, 18 Oct 2004 (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. FloydPink 00:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
And these observations are just from the first two paras. FloydPink 00:25, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In a
Radio National interview, 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.
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. -- Calair 00:08, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The last paragraph of "Sexual and religious attitudes":
imho, that last sentence that I have put in bold is pure POV editorialising. I removed it previously [3], but User:ShaneKing added it back in [4], so, rather than delete it again, I throw it open to you all: is it an appropriate comment for a Wikipedia article? — Stormie 04:42, Oct 19, 2004 (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.
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.
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."
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. - Aaron Hill 11:43, Oct 19, 2004 (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. Adam 00:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Without wanting to be too partisan, Nile is widely regarded in both political and church circles as decent but an old fool. Adam 05:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Are there any outstanding POV issues now, or can we remove the tag? -- Calair 04:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
From the '2004 Election' section:
The party agreed to share House of Representatives preferences with the Liberal-National Coalition at the 2004 election [6] ( 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).
From the 'Gay Rights' section:
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.
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? -- Calair 04:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
-- 203.87.127.18 09:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)==Snideness==
the Assemblies of God website was down for maintenance for a considerable period, coincidentally making it difficult to verify the affiliations of many candidates.
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. -- Calair 23:23, 10 August 2005 (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.
Alex Law 08:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Alex you make a very good point, 11 out of 23 candidates from the AoG windsor church, how manu others are from AoG churches? 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.
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
If people have a reason this FACT should not be on Wiki please explain, otherwise it should stay, so please do not remove it.
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. Slac speak up! 03:26, 13 March 2006 (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-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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 . Ashmoo 07:00, 28 March 2006 (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. Ambi 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The last para of the Pornography section smacks of Original Research. Is there a citeable 3rd party that made the link between the 93% and 75% figures and the suspicions of push-polling. If not, it needs to be removed. Ashmoo 07:21, 22 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.
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. Phanatical 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see the figures on the candidates, how many are christian, and how many are Assembly members?-- Polygamist times 4 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The anti-Evans web site is a geocities web site. Should we be linking to that kind of site? Andjam 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading Barnaby Joyce, 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".
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 Family First Party. Timeshift 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
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). -- Robert Merkel 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. Xtra 07:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is the paragraph on Dennis Hood + Creationism duplicated from the Dennis Hood 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? Rocksong 02:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this following section contains a huge amount of OR.
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. Recurring dreams 00:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia, on top of the problems associated with people linking to their own sites; as per WP:SPS, self-published blogs are generally not considered verifiable sources, with some exceptions not applicable here. -- Calair 03:09, 26 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:
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:
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.-- Baliset 13:53, 28 July 2007
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)
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 -- 203.87.127.18 11:33, 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?-- 203.87.127.18 11:42, 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?-- 203.87.127.18 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.-- 203.87.127.18 12:57, 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.-- 203.87.127.18 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
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.-- 203.87.127.18 11:24, 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. Chrismaltby 02:27, 30 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?-- 203.87.127.18 11:18, 31 July 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 ( talk • contribs).
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/wiki/Pro_Life-- 203.87.127.18 11:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I have added an opposing opinon with reference to the article above, did you read it?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 ( talk • contribs).
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. Rebecca 11:38, 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-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Why does one policy start
According to their web site, Family First say
The rest say
Family First and dont mention their website-- AoG The One True Chruch 11:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
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.-- Polygamy4 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. Phanatical 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?-- 203.192.92.73 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.-- 203.192.92.73 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!-- Polygamistx4 14:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the lead section (i.e. before the Table of Contents) needs a short paragraph on what FF stands for (See Australian Greens 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. Peter Ballard 12:54, 20 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?-- 203.192.92.73 13:01, 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... Chrismaltby 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
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. 58.107.67.193 02:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Depends how you view it, they can be either. Christian is best description of the party.-- 203.192.92.73 12:35, 28 August 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.-- Polygamist times 4 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Whats The FFP stance on hunting? Its not covered in their site? anyone seem anything on the subject on official release/doc etc?-- Polygamist times 4 13:59, 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-- Polygamist times 4 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
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:
Peter Ballard 05:56, 7 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? -- Polygamistx4 00:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
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!-- Polygamistx4 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.-- Polygamistx4 01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Re here.
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. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:28, 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". Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:38, 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"? Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 23:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
In all the editing documented above (which I largely agree with) we lost the important fact that FF use candidate positions on sexuality issues in deciding voting tickets. Restored in a minimal form hopefully in keeping with article style. Chrismaltby 01:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh, the article as it stood claimed "several newspapers" were of the opinion and then cited a single source. Maybe you should reread WP:SYNTH. I did not assert "that only a single reporter drew attention to it". That is in fact a bald faced lie and assertion of gaming is a violation WP:AGF. Poor form really. Prester John -( Talk to the Hand) 03:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Whatever... the edit inspired a look at the record and there's a wealth of choices for citation. Chrismaltby 04:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Made change proposed above after allowing reasonable time for dissent. Shame we can't fix the cringe-making grammar of the final quote from FF policy - is that a double, triple or quadruple negative? Chrismaltby 09:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Please talk here before reverting me.
I have trimmed this section significantly. For a party that has almost nothing to do with gay rights, a section that large is odd, off-balance, and out of proportion to the rest of the article. It swayed from attacking FF over their policies, to showing off their "family friendly" policies, to giving a brief history of their history towards homosexuals. It is a subsection of the policy section, nothing more, so I've trimmed it to the bare-bone to keep it in line and in proportion to the rest of the article; surely this is enough and will stop the bickering over names and minor details. Michael talk 03:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Under the Policies section their is this statement
"You don't want to know... but a complete list of Family First's declared policies may be found on their website[11]." Chris talk October 23, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuzyk ( talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why was my cited addition on this removed? People are generally being too protective and controlling as to what appears on this page lately. Stop being so sensitive and insecure about your own party. Timeshift 16:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I begin this discussion after noticing that the information about the South Australian bill, called The Statues Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill, has been deleted from the article. Here's the diff. This bill was aimed at giving equality to same-sex couples. For anyone interested in a reference, the South Australian parliament Hansard shows where the parties stand on the issue. Hansard link. Do a browser word search for the words: Family First will oppose the amendments, and it will take you to the relevant text. Also, here's a NineMSN story before the bill was passed, indicating previous FF support. Thanks, Lester 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC) What makes this unique is the party's position/attitudes on the LGBT community, and yet here we have this FFP candidate batting for and with guys. It reminds me of the whole gay scandal inside the Republican Party a short while ago... but i'm not going to fight to have it added, i'll allow those who are sensitive over this article to continue. Timeshift 01:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)