Talk:Family First Party/Archive 1

message: Does anyone know how big Assemblies of God is in Australia?
:"It currently consists of 1,012 churches with over 160,000 constituents, making it the largest Pentecostal movement in Australia."  —Stormie 09:12, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
Currently over 190,000 souls that have been saved--AoG The One True Chruch 11:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of AoG 

message: "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)
: Maybe its being trite to say this, but "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck". Just because they say they're not a religious party doesn't mean they're not a religious party. If John Howard came out and said the Liberal party is not a conservative party, should we just change the wiki page for the Liberals on his word? Shane King 12:43, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
:: Both are good points.  I think, though, that a section listing similar parties should focus on similarities between FF policies and corresponding policies of other parties and groups.  The problem with drawing links between, for example, FF and Christian groups is when you start finding links between them and other more contraversial groups (e.g. the Nazi revisionists which Andrew Evans met with in 2002).  Much better to lay the dry facts out regarding their policies here, the Christian links have been covered in the first section of the article.  --BenM 15:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, but differences should also be highlighted - it's useful for a reader to understand why FF might have more appeal than the CDP, for instance. Noting differences here also goes a long way to reducing potential POV problems caused by both 'similar parties' being overtly religious. --Calair 23:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Or it could be Fred Nile himself that causes it to poll so poorly. Shane King 04:55, Oct 20, 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)
thread_title:  POV in Similar Parties heading 

message: 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)
replies: text: How about now? I'm not sure whether the tense change is necessary, but I think the rest of the paragraph now contains enough information for readers to figure out the meaning. For more detail, they can look at the DLP's own article. --Calair 05:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent.  Slac speak up! 07:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The DLP would also claim to be secular. The comparison is apt. Chrismaltby 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The DLP, then and now

message: 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)
replies: text: I plan to draft a whole new version of this article and then see about replacing the current one; I will be including this along with a raft of FF stuff too. It'll be nice to see a politics article which is more than a punch [media ref] and counter [party policy] approach. michael talk 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be interested to see how it turns out, as this is something that seems to affect a lot of articles on Aus political parties (this, the Greens, and One Nation having particularly wretched articles). That said, you're pretty passionate about the topic, so please watch your biases with the rewrite. Ambi 04:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there much to be said on this? Their highest vote was 15% in the districts, less than the greens highest vote, and one seat in the LC. That about raps it up :P Timeshift 14:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SA

message: 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)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Further to that point, claiming that a "significant number" identify as non-Christian on the basis that you do isn't even particularly good original research. Rebecca 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article suggests that Family First is a Christian organisation, and infers that non-Christians are not welcome. This is clearly not true, by the very fact that there are not only non-Christian members, but non-Christian candidates. Phanatical 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming a significant number of non-Christian members and claiming that non-Christians are not welcome are two very different things. The former is up to you to show evidence for. No one here is claiming the latter. Rebecca 09:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist Family First Members & Candidates 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think so - its just a negative, non-authorative site. If we're going to link to something critical, we should link to something critical of substance (like an editorial). michael talk 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to see how it meets the criteria in Wikipedia:External links; it would be a bit of a stretch to call it either 'prominent' or 'neutral', and none of the other 'what to link to' points apply. But more than that, the focus is entirely on Evans and the AoG, not Family First... probably because the page was last updated five years before FF was even founded. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia it would be on Andrew Evans or Assemblies of God, not here. --Calair 03:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's so outdated that I can't see any use in it (not that it would be much  better if it was updated). Michael's suggestion would be more appropriate. Rebecca 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Evans web site 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right, and some of that OR was my fault. I've cut it back to things that (I hope) should be more supportable; it could still do with more cites, but I don't think the claim that FF has mustered more support than the CDP managed is really in doubt, nor that FF is less eager than the CDP to be seen as a 'Christian party'. Also removed the bit about combining left and right/wing positions, because it's never really been that cut-and-dried; there are plenty of Labor MPs opposed to abortion, for instance. --Calair 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole section remain pure OR and uncited, so I chopped it. Ashmoo 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar Parties 

message: 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)
replies: text: Officially the ALP is not a trade union. Timeshift 11:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Look harder. I have responded to you in the section below and on your talk page.--cj | talk 13:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Family First a Christian Party? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Policy Formating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Family First are also opposed to The Pill and the IUD 

message: 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)
replies: text: Added something that sounds about right. Michael talk 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think the allegations over ties to the AoG church form the identity of the Family First Party. I'm an FFP member, I'm not an AoG member, and there are lots of us who participate in the FFP because we genuinely care about families. Phanatical 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not alleged in the intro, they're implied; personally I hate having to bend over and word it this way to satisfy the ravenous demands of those who see FF = Christian Party. I don't know how many times I've read newspaper articles saying FF = Christian, and then the party having to deny it again and again and again and (after that) again. Michael talk 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to cause you such grief, but despite these protestations, FF is perceived by the mainstream to be a Christian party - conservative Christian "values", conservative Christian members (a few loonies and a few more moderate), and capped off with a hyper-sensitivity to being called Christian because they know it doesn't sell well in the electorate. All the more reason to make the link and the issue of the link plain. I thought Michael's short para was well written and fairly balanced and I'd support it going back in. I see no consensus for its removal and I will revert. Chrismaltby 13:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an absolutely ridiculous claim perpetuated by people like you (an office-bearer in the Australian Greens) for your own electoral benefit with absolutely no truth in reality. You can't use the justification that Family First is seen by some (ie, you) to be a fundamentalist Christian organisation to justify perpetuating that myth. Phanatical 08:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael's addition said, "Officially secular, many of its candidates and members are from conservative Christian backgrounds; perceived links to Churches have been a subject of contention.". Perhaps we should remove the first part, so that the lead simply says, "perceived links to Churches have been a subject of contention." I think the lead needs to say something about perceived links, because it's a big issue. (Not saying the party's Christian, of course). And I'm a FF member. Peter Ballard 12:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I think it's only made an issue by FF's opponents. If we are to mention "perceived" links, it should not be in the header of the article, because we are not defined by Christian links that simply don't exist.Phanatical 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll bite, just this once. THIS Family First candidate is not a Christian.Phanatical 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Maltby, do us all a favour and loose that oh-so-typical aloof attitude of most Greenies. I've rewritten it again. Michael talk 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Who's stereotyping now? Anyway, I won't complain about your revision to the intro words. Let's see how Phanatical the non-Christian feels. Chrismaltby 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's appropriate to talk about supposed Christian links in the very first paragraph. We're not about religion, despite what some people might want others to think. We're about family values informed by traditions which include, but are not limited to the Christian traditions. My values, for example, are informed by my Chinese upbringing. It would be like me making the following change to the Australian Greens article: "The Australian Greens, commonly known as The Greens, is an Anarchist Australian political party, espousing the overthrow of traditional values. Many of its candidates and members boast criminal records, although the party itself promotes peace." Coming from anybody, that sounds ridiculous. Coming from a Family First candidate, it's pure propaganda - which is exactly the purpose of Chris Maltby's in perpetuum edits. Phanatical 14:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's mostly because those kinds of allegations about the Greens are demonstrably non-factual. The links between FF and A0G are an established fact, in spite of the protestations of FF members. Chrismaltby 01:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed Christian links, which I think is quite appropriate. Phanatical, this article needs a makeover in many places more pressing than this one line: attend to them first? This seems the least important part. Michael talk 14:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike this particular introduction, because the very first thing this Wikipedia article says about Family First is that we're duplicious and dishonest.58.107.67.193 22:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I (as a FF member) agree that the comment on church links belongs in the lead, I agree that it's in too early, and doesn't belong in the first paragraph. I think it should be in the last paragraph in the lead. Peter Ballard 04:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can I point out my compromise was not my preferred option. Personally I believe Phanatical (you really could have chosen a better name) is right, and agree with Peter that somewhere in there we have to mention something. Add a Christian bit in the intro, just later on. Michael talk 13:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For 'heaven's sake', can we at least stop referring to it as the 'Michael compromise'? Phanatical, write up an alternative intro here on the talk page, we'll debate it, modify it, and put it up. Michael talk 00:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section is too sterile 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'll bite. Centre-right is marginally a better fit than Extreme-right. They sure aren't Left of any kind... Chrismaltby 05:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On social/economic issues (industrial relations, refugees, Iraq) they're generally to the "left" of the Liberals. On "personal morality" issues (for want of a better name) (abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia) they're well to the "right". That's why I dislike one word labels (as in the infobox) and would rather have it explained in a couple of sentences, but if we must have a label centre-right's as close as any - but it should be referenced. Peter Ballard 07:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: For the record, Family First voted AGAINST WorkChoices and the Sale of Telstra.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.67.193 (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre-Right Party? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I believe it is true, but I deleted the reference because it is a Wikipedia mirror site. Peter Ballard 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Google helped me locate a reliable reference for the claim and I have added it to the article now. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on September 24, 2004 by Mike Seccombe "Behind Family First is a clan of true believers". Chrismaltby 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone removed the stat showing just how many canidiates in NSW from same AOG Church 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section trim 

message: 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]."
Christalk
October 23, 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckuzyk (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism that was only just added, and i've reverted it. The page isn't locked you know... Timeshift 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of this statement 

message: 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)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I saw it added was here, when (a) it was uncited, and (b) speculation was reported as fact. Peter Ballard 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/22/2065836.htm - and no reference does not warrant removal. It warrants querying on the talk page, a fact tag, or adding a citation by searching for 'brokenshire family first' at news.google. Timeshift 03:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, presumably based on this article, you turned a "could" into a "will". Nothing personal, but Michael was right to delete it. Peter Ballard 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brokenshire taking over from Evans in SA upper

message: 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)
thread_title: The Statues Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill