Talk:Family First Party

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: As I think I said above, a neutrally written note on Andrew Quah (or on the "burn the lesbians" idiot) is OK, and what you suggest is fine.  Peter Ballard (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added this to the 2007 election section. Haven't yet found a solid reference to his authorisation of election material, though...? PollyWaffler (talk) 23:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  ...and now it's gone again. Blnguyen - care to justify your revert? Point to policy or guideline? (I would, of course, have been happy to leave out the un-cited part about him authorising election material...) PollyWaffler (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sterilisation v. Sensationalism

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Policy references

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Noteable? 

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

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

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

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

message: As a FF member I'm trying my hardest to avoid editing this article, but I think the latest round of anon edits should be blanket reverted, because there's too much silliness mixed in with what might be useful. Looking at the diffs since 5-Aug, I see several "what the" edits:
* All sorts of strange stuff in the policial ideaology box, including Abolitionism (who isn't) and Fiscal conservatism (not an FF policy);
* The :Category:Christian political parties cat has been added (highly contentious);
* "See also" Liberal Party (what the?);
* "See also" US Republican party, a "conservative Christian party" (what the?);
* an uncited and dubious list of "key persons", both in the lead and in the article body.
Please revert the lot, someone. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent activity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious affiliation 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: Just curious  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.3.191 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A foolish desire among some people for simplistic descriptors in Infoboxes. I'd be happy to see it removed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a few days now with no further comment. I shall boldly remove it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right-wing is fair. They are well to the right of the Liberals, especially under Day's leadership.--Jay942942 (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but it's opinion, so should not be included. We've been over the whole left/right labels many times - there is no consensus for them to remain. Timeshift (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes the party "far right" 

message: An image used in this article, File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Photo - Andrew Evans.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: As a Christian, I find the way this party is referred to as "Christian" in the article to be extremely offensive. I don't know the best way to rewrite the article to differentiate between the fact that they believe themselves to be Christian and the fact that there are many of us Christians out here that are offended by their actions.  As a Christian myself, I can categorically say that they do not represent a single Christian value of mine and that they actively work against all of my Christian values!
Just because a group believe they are Christian does not mean they represent everyone else thinks the same thing.  Just because they claim a Christian leaning in their speeches does not make them Christian any more than Hitler making Christian statements in his speeches made him Christian.
If we want Wikipedia to be a factual, unbiased information source, the fact that so many of us Christians are offended by these guys should be mentioned at least.
:That would be the No true Scotsman fallacy. If you can find reliable sources claiming that many (or some, or most, or whatever) Australian Christians disagree so strongly with Family First, then feel free to add it! 118.209.45.194 (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, while I clearly understand your point, you would need an independent source describing the problem. They day all Christians agree on what defines a Christian our life here will be made a lot easier. HiLo48 (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offensive Bias 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family first overload 

message: "he was also receiving paycheques worth thousands of dollars a month from Family First and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party." and "Druery was also being paid by Family First in Victoria and the Fishing and Lifestyle Party in Queensland about $5,000 a month each for up to six months.". 
Firstly editor User_talk:Bell20 removed the statement saying it wasn't in the reference. I reverted it and left a message on said user's talkpage with the contents of both refs to back it up. Then they removed the statement again saying only shooters and fishers and not family first? Either Bell20 didn't read it, again, or they just don't want it on this page. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, interesting news about Druery being paid, though I guess he wasn't doing it out of the goodness of his heart. I'd say you're definitely in the right – hard to argue with references from the ABC, News Corp, and Fairfax. You can probably slip an "allegedly" or a "reportedly" somewhere in there if it becomes an issue. IgnorantArmies 05:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See their talkpage - they're claiming i'm the one with the COI, lol! I think they've got the message though - no response since. Always interesting to know who's putting up the Minor Party Alliance preference trading funding though. Sports and Motoring got elected without known payments to Druery. FFP got a candidate elected and have paid money to Druery. FFP are the only ones who've both paid Druery and have been successful in electing a Senator candidate from the Minor Party Alliance, that we know of/have reliably sourced. So it's definately noteable :) Timeshift (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hopefully not an edit war over FFP's payments to [[Glenn Druery]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed issue tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third party sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Family First Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101019112247/http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-e4r.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-e4r.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090612084502/http://www.familyfirst.org.au:80/policy/policyasylumseekers.pdf to http://www.familyfirst.org.au/policy/policyasylumseekers.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100820120812/http://www.sa-familyfirst.org.au/about.htm to http://www.sa-familyfirst.org.au/about.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Family First Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041029003552/http://www.abc.net.au:80/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1209308.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1209308.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100507131445/http://www.qld-familyfirst.org.au:80/QLD.htm to http://www.qld-familyfirst.org.au/QLD.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2016 Election 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812141304/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-SA.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-SA.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160805051205/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-20499-SA.pdf to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-20499-SA.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812105302/http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-NAT.htm to http://vtr.aec.gov.au/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup-20499-NAT.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=98&libID=120
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518171510/http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21560972-5007146,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21560972-5007146,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified