Talk:Family First Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Size of AoG

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." [1] —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)

Paedophiles & 'community groups'

"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)

Perhaps instead include mention of certain of their policies and how those policies may arbitrarily affect certain spheres in order to address areas of FF's concern. Such as their anti-pornography policy, which includes acceptance of closing down most of Australia's ISPs in order to make Internet filtering more viable and thereby protect children (check their policy document for details). BenM 08:59, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added the bit about paedophiles, and structured that section the way it was. While the view that there's at least some measure of free will involved with all behaviours might not be popular with some, so is denying this (as Calair has done). It *is* important to point out that there are minority groups that Family First dislikes more than GLBTs, because otherwise it looks like they are their prime target. By focusing only on their "controversial policies", the party gets defined by it's difference from what one (or a collective) observer sees as the mainstream. Considering their relative lack of policies, it's easy to see what they're interested in - and that should be what decides the policies listed. And BenM, they would not close down the ISPs, they would simply make them comply. Look at Clear Channel in the US - conservatives over there haven't shut them down, just made them a lot more "clean". Commercial companies almost never make stands on moral issues, and especially not non-religious ones. [Anonymous_Author]

While the view that there's at least some measure of free will involved with all behaviours might not be popular with some, so is denying this (as Calair has done).

I did no such thing. My reasons for deleting the description of paedophilia as a "lifestyle choice" are set out above, and I can't see anything in there in which I opined either way as to whether it *was* a choice. Please read more carefully before putting words in my mouth. --Calair 22:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On 'closing down' ISPs - the issue was not that FF wanted to shut down ISPs as such, but that the costs of complying with FF's proposed rules would drive most Australian ISPs out of business. (Filtering internet access being a vastly more complicated thing than keeping one's own programming 'clean'). --Calair 23:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV Issues with this article

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)

• 'Family First is a minor party', is it not a third party?

The meaning of third party varies from country to country; FF only fits some of those definitions, and no Australian definition is offered on that page. (I'm not sure there *is* a standard Australian usage - especially since, taken literally, the 'third party' would be the Nationals.) Unless and until that's sorted out, I don't think describing it as a "third party" would assist clarity. 'Minor party' is ambiguous - can mean either "insignificant" or just "smaller than the big guys" - but I think the rest of the article makes it clear that the intended meaning is the latter. --Calair 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually the third party would be the greens, who received 6.9% of the vote to the national's 5.9%. I'm not sure whether third or minor party is a fair term to use for any article though, since both are somewhat loaded in implying that the party is "unimportant". Especially since it rates parties on a particular election's votes received, and at least theoretically, any party could overtake one of the "major" parties at the next election, for all we know. Probably better to just state how many votes they got, and just let the reader infer from that what they will. Shane King 23:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. I don't think it's such a loaded term (I'm happy to describe my own party of choice as 'minor'), but the rest of the article renders it unnecessary. --Calair 04:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it re-enforces the existing order of things. For exmaple my parents voted for Labor rather than the Greens this election because the Greens are seen as a "minor" party and therefore they didn't think they had any policies. While it may be true that the Greens currently have no hope of carrying out their policies, that's always going to be the case so long as they're categorised as a "minor" party and therefore not voted for by people who would otherwise support them. Shane King 00:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

We may want to use the classification of party size provided with the List of political parties in Australia page. This would make FF "medium" rather than minor on account of holding office, but not Government. BenM 05:39, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Receives its support from various Christian groups', it received hundreds of thousands of votes so presumably support is broader than that.
  • How do you say that.. 70% of the Australian population is Christian and 2% voted for Family First. Certainly their major support is from Christian groups - Aaron Hill 07:50, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • 70% of Australians say their Christian for the census. About 20% turn up to church at least once a month. According to the National Church Life Survey, an even smaller percentage believe in all the main Christian beliefs.

• 'Main support in SA', received most votes in Qld.

It depends, I guess, on how you define "main support." Number of votes isn't necessarily the best indicator because support can also indicate financial, volunteer and membership factors. BenM 05:05, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Inference of Liberal support. Family First did deal with Labor in Tasmania and Victoria. In fact Labor's preferences elected both FF candidates.

What inference? The only mention of the Liberal Party in that section is the observation that in one specific seat - Makin - FF's preferences helped the Liberals win. Looking at the AEC results [2], this is verifiable fact. FF took ~5% of the primary vote in Makin, they preferenced Liberals, and the Liberals ended up winning with a two-party preferred margin of less than 2%. This is a comment on a specific seat, noting that FF's preferences played a crucial role in the outcome.

I did, much further down, note that FF directed their preferences in favour of the Coalition over Labor, with specific exceptions for Ingrid Tall and Warren Entsch. If you can tell me specific seats in which FF preferenced the ALP ahead of the Coalition, I'm quite willing to verify those and correct accordingly.--Calair 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Theocratic.' FF's website does not mention God or religion once.

Agreed (edit: on inappropriateness of 'theocratic' classification, that is); while FF's religious connections are significant, they don't really fit the definition given under theocratic.--Calair 01:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW... "does not mention God or religion once"? The search box on their page says otherwise - for instance, Andrew Evans' speech on a bill to allow euthanasia: "For those who do not believe in God, this argument of mine will have little impact, but for those who believe in a divine being let me say that this great God of love and compassion is also a God who has boundar­ies... Out of his love for mankind he has set boundaries and these boundaries have been accepted by the world as a foundation for the laws of every country. God's boundaries are the 10 commandments. The seventh com­mandment states, `Thou shalt not murder.' The exception to that commandment was presented clearly in the Bible, namely, in times of war and self defence."

And Evans again: "...the National Day of Thanksgiving is different from Australia Daythe former being a chance to publicly celebrate our faith, and the latter being a celebration of our nationhood. The National Day of Thanksgiving has come about as a result of numbers of individuals and organisations making repeated calls for a national day to give every Australian the oppor­tunity to express gratitude of and give thanks to God and to others... In 1988, 50 000 Christians from all over Australia travelled to Canberra to dedicate Australia and the new Parliament House to God and prayer. This was followed by prayer and fasting events in 1996 and 1998 convened by Praise Corroboree; and then finally, in 1998, about 30 000 Christians gathered for an all night prayer vigil at Parliament House in Canberra to pray for the nation. In 2004, Australia 's most significant prayer organisation, the Australian Prayer Network, put forward for comment the concept of the National Day of Thanksgiving to various organisations. The idea quickly gained support, including from the National Prayer Council."

--Calair 11:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• 'Candidates from one church' Many ALP candidates are union officials, doesn't make the ALP a union only party. ALP's relationship with unions is complicated, as illustrated by the CFMEU Forestry's opposition to Latham's forestry policy.

However, Australian Labor Party notes right at the start that the ALP "is so-named because of its origins in and close links to the trade union movement". The ALP has close union connections, Family First has close church connections; neither of these completely define these parties, but both are worthy of mention. --Calair 01:16, 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)

Another POV Issue

The last paragraph of "Sexual and religious attitudes":

According to a Radio National interview with Andrew Evans, Family First stands for "families, and family values". He defined families as being "Mums and Dads, Grandpas and Grandmas, boys and girls, heterosexual, and singles." When taken in conjunction with the common Christian belief that homosexual thoughts are just another temptation, while homosexual actions are a sin, this statement can be seen as saying the only people they don't represent are practicing homosexuals. How the Family First party reconcile the fact that some homosexuals are parents or grandparents of children through previous heterosexual relationships is unclear.

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)

• I think it sould probably go - its commentary--nixie 05:43, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also think it should go - and the sentence before it, too. ("When taken in conjunction with the common Christian belief...") That one amounts to "Evans' party believes A, people of Evans' faith commonly believe B, therefore we can put A & B together to deduce that his party believes C." Even if this didn't involve the assumption that Evans' party and Evans' faith are of one mind (which is, as we've seen, a matter of argument), this is poor logic; just because we believe C is a natural consequence of somebody's beliefs doesn't mean *they* share that belief.

"How the Family First party reconcile... is unclear" reads more like a thinly-veiled stab at the party - "these guys are too dim to realise that some homosexuals have kids" - than an informative statement. May not have been the original poster's intent, but that's how it looked to me.

Frankly, IMHO, Evans' quote makes things pretty clear; the two following paras don't really add much to a reader's knowledge about FF. --Calair 06:31, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines aew quite clear to me: When I'm told to both state the obvious and make omissions explicit, I feel that the statement must be there. If that makes readers think Family First appears stupid, then so be it - it's not my fault they have an incoherant policy full of logical inconsistencies that they have to the best of my knowledge not even attempted to explain.

I also find it wrong that it has been removed pending discussion. Why not leave it pending discussion? As far as I see it, the onus is on you to discuss your potential change (ie removing it) before doing so, not remove it then tell me I should come to the talk page if I want it back. For that reason, I'm replacing it, and I expect it to stay until this is resolved. Shane King 10:25, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Calare, the last two sentences are needless editorialising of the issue and are POV. My sentence would read "Critics of Family First claim that this definition infers that the only people that Family First does not represent are gay and lesbian people." Critics is of course replaced with a source, otherwise its a weasel comment. Note that "homosexual" is derogotory when used to describe people.. - Aaron Hill 11:40, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain what purpose that sentence serves other than to take a swipe at Family First? Andrew Evans spelled out his definition of families in an interview. You've combined that definition with a "common Christian belief" (even though, as the article makes clear, FF flat out claim not to be a Christian party) to come to the (admitted reasonable) conclusion that FF do not represent homosexuals. But then, trumpeting this in a "they're so stupid! they say they stand for mums and dads, but some homosexuals are mums and dads too!" fashion is not even remotely encyclopedic.

FF also take a strong stance against child abuse and child pornography: do you think there a logical gap there that they need to reconcile? After all, many pornographers are mums and dads, and many of them are heterosexual, too!

I'm sorry you're offended at me removing it again before you weighed in on the discussion. But given that a couple of others had already agreed that it was out of order, I felt that the encyclopedia was left in a better state by its absence.

p.s. I honestly have no idea what either the state the obvious or make omissions explicit policies have to do with this. —Stormie 11:46, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have not combined it with common Christian belief. That statement was there to begin with, I just reformatted the sentence to make it read better, without (I hope!) changing the meaning. I only let it stay because I felt removing it was a bigger risk to the neutrality of the article (and perhaps an edit war) than leaving it, since I'd already removed similar (but very poorly formatted) material earlier.

The appropriateness of the guidelines is as such:

State to obvious: "Establish significances, large implications & why we should care". I feel that the inherent contradiction and assumptions are significant, and that wikipedia guidelines state that they be pointed out.

Make ommissions explicit: "But if for some reason you can't cover a point that should be covered, make that omission explicit." I can't explain how they deal with the contradiction, so I am explicitly stating that how they deal with it is unclear.

Additionally, I feel that the reason for removal seems to be that it makes Family First look bad. In my view, removing factual and relevant material, which is not only allowed but demanded by the editing guidelines, because it might make the subject of a page look bad is obviously not in accordance with the NPOV policy.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have re-added the material to the page, and I appologise for that. It was a bit of tit-for-tating that I engaged in because I felt wronged by the removal despite reinstating it and stating my reasons for doing so. I will remove it until this can be resolved, as I have to admit it doesn't look like I'm going to have majority support on this one.

Basically my position is that I believe the guidelines say that the sentence I added should be there. If you can find stronger evidence from the guidelines it should not be there, I'll gladly drop my protest. I don't like parts of the guidelines much myself, but in this situation, what else do we have to go on? Shane King 12:34, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

My reason for disliking it isn't that it makes FF look bad... but that it feels as if it was added *solely* to make FF look bad. Even if that wasn't your intention, it gives the article a POV feel.

I could equally well post "Evans has publicly opposed euthanasia, a stance which requires thousands of Australians to die slow and painful deaths." It's perfectly *true*, and AFAICT the arguments you've presented could equally well be applied to justifying this sentence. But something can be true, and still be POV. (BTW, Evans'/FF's stance on euthanasia would certainly be appropriate for this article - just not the editorialising that follows.)

IMHO, the problem's less with the observation itself than with the tone of it. IME, when somebody says "how A reconciles X with Y is unclear", it's usually understood as a snide way of saying "A is an idiot, because he hasn't reconciled X with Y, because he CAN'T". Something like "Family First have not indicated whether they acknowledge gays with children as a legitimate form of family" expresses the same fact, but feels more neutral to me - would that be an acceptable compromise? --Calair 23:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly fine to me. I'm usually happy for people to reword things to make them clearer or fairer (so long as they don't butcher the intent). What I objected to was removing the thing entirely.

As a side note, I'm not sure I agree that it's wrong to put something in an article, even if its sole intent is to make someone look stupid. So long as you present the stupidity in an impartial way, it's OK with me. Some things are just impossible to write about without making the subject look stupid (how can you write about Pauline Hanson's response to "Are you Xenophobic?" without making her look like a moron, for example?) To my way of thinking, if people don't want to be made to look stupid, they should stop saying stupid things. Shane King 00:02, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Compromise works for me, too. I'm perfectly happy for this article to make Family First look bad, as long as it doesn't make Wikipedia look bad. :-) e.g. the paragraph I added a while back about FF denying being a Christian party.. even though Andrew Evans was the General Superintendent of the Assemblies of God in Australia for twenty years and a large number of their candidates are pastors or members of Assemblies of God churches - I hope that did make them look bad. But, as Calair said, there was just something about the tone of that sentence that rubbed me up the wrong way. It didn't read like an encyclopedic presentation of facts. It read like a swipe. The policy of Wikipedia is that if people say stupid things, we report them, and let the reader say "wow, that's stupid". We don't help them along. That's why the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't say that he was a bad person - when the facts are presented, you don't need to say it. —Stormie 00:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

POV in Similar Parties heading

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Are there any outstanding POV issues now, or can we remove the tag? --Calair 04:50, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Repetition (and missing reference?)

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).

I've read the attached PDF. It doesn't seem to make the assertion above. It may be a reasonable assumption, but shouldn't the article reflect that? (unless there is another reference that supports this reason), eg. wording should be something like "... Brisbane and Leichhardt, presumably because ..."?

You're right, the PDF was only intended to document what the preferences were, and the reasons given for those preferences should've been referenced too (fixed now). The one for Entsch isn't as strong as I'd like (SMH article gives that as the reason FF preferenced against him, but don't attribute this explanation to anybody). But it's certainly in keeping with their stated reasons for preferencing against Tall, so I doubt it'll cause too much controversy. --Calair 15:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Oh, sorry. I didn't realise that the information was already in the article in another place. Ambi 04:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Have re-reverted. --Calair 04:28, 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)

agreed. --Stormie 01:26, August 11, 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)

How about this? A large number of Family First's candidates are pastors or members of Assemblies of God churches. In New South Wales, 11 of their 23 candidates for the 2004 legislative election were from a single Assemblies of God church, the Hawkesbury Church in Windsor. Several commentators, including Labor frontbencher Kevin Rudd, have described Family First candidates as deliberately playing down their connections to the AoG[5]. During the election campaign period, the Assemblies of God website was down for maintenance for a considerable period, making it difficult to verify the affiliations of many candidates or their exact positions within the AoG.

I don't think it's appropriate to be joining the dots further than that unless there is some specific evidence that the downtime was an attempt at obfuscation. --Calair 23:25, 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.

The DLP, then and now

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)

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)

Excellent. Slac speak up! 07:13, 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 DLP would also claim to be secular. The comparison is apt. Chrismaltby 13:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservative status

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)

Hi Ambi, I'm surprised you reverted my edits as partisan. Honestly, I can't guess which side of the partisan divide you think I'm on. But I can assure you that I'm not interesting in doing any edits from a POV perspective. I posted the above request for discussion a number of weeks ago and then made the changes when no comments were forthcoming. My only interest is in reducing the amount of unsourced commentary (and pedagogy) in the article. Ashmoo 23:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this article really needs to get into the argument over whether or not FF are 'conservative'. A lot of that comes down to what the word itself means, and is better discussed over at conservative. IMHO, it would be better to focus on the specifics - policies, actions, statements, etc. - and let readers make what they will of it.

IIRC (which I may not), that discussion originally entered the article as an attempt to end argument about the 'political ideology' section of the party template. I do think it's potentially problematic to list them simply as 'conservative' - as the deleted section noted, they fit the description on some issues, not on others - and I'm not sure how best to tackle that, but I don't think the 'Conservative Status' section was the right answer. --Calair 23:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan to rewrite the article, and there is a lot more political categories other than 'conservative' that more aptly suit Family First. Finding the most fitting one should be a challenge, or it may not even be required. Their policy should present them better than a label would - and their policy has yet to be defined appropriately. michael ^talk 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

SA

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pornography section and Original Research

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)

Mea culpa. My intent was to provide more information about the poll than FF's quotes offered, but in hindsight I agree that it drifted into OR; hope it looks better now. --Calair 23:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Calair. I checked out your User page, it seems like we have very similar goals on Wikipedia, (I especially dislike 'it should be noted that...' and the argument/counter-argument format).

User:Rebecca, I noticed you have removed my request for a cite a second time for this sentence:

However, advocates of freedom of information strongly objected as there is no surefire way to completely and only block pornography, suggesting that non-offensive sites may be filtered inadvertently.

Would you be able to outline why to don't think the sentence requires WP:Verifiability? To me, 'advocates of FOI' sounds like Weasel words. Regards, Ashmoo 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Without it, the page is biased. It espouses the Family First policy as if it has great widespread support and minimal objections. The sentence thus poses the other side of the argument in a fair and reasonable manner. Rebecca 00:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Subtle but important issue here: Wikipedia is not here to pose arguments. As WP:NPOV says, "Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."

If FoI advocates did indeed strongly object, we should report that, with attribution. If they didn't, or if we can't find evidence that they did, we shouldn't make such a claim just because we want to rebut FF's arguments. Sadly, "it's so wrong that somebody must have criticised it" doesn't cut it.

By the way, this is exactly why I reconsidered some of my earlier edits as discussed above. I still believe that those criticisms of FF's arguments are valid, but without a citable source, they're only my criticisms - and no matter how good I think my arguments are, Wikipedia is not my soapbox.--Calair 01:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that it does pose verifiability issues, I believe the issue of neutrality is more fundamental here. If the article is going to set out all the reasons supporting the proposal (as it does here), it needs to go into the reverse, or it is patently biased. Alternatively, if it is written in the form of "okay, this is what is being proposed, and leave it at that", then no more needs to be said. This would, however, require a rewrite of the section. Rebecca 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all the 'reasons supporting the proposal' are sourced and clearly labelled as Family First claims rather than objective fact. We can't violate WP:Verifiability in order to provide balance. If I've missed something, or misunderstood your point, please let me know. Regards, Ashmoo 03:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just had another look through and found some cites that didn't support the statements they were attached to. I am trying to fix them. I think if we insist on cites for everything we can avoid many POV problems. Ashmoo 03:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Was wondering why The Age poll indicating 65% of respondents against government-subsidised filtering was removed; surely it is more recent, and potentially more relevant, representation of the community opinion than the limited focus of "parents of 12-17 year olds" used in the Australia Institute research. Natronomonas 04:03, 23 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.

Neutrality is important, but it doesn't justify unverifiable claims. If no significant organisations/speakers/etc stood up to oppose FF's proposal, this article should not tell readers that they did. If they did stand up, all we have to do is identify who they were and when/where they said it, which should not be terribly difficult. I went a-Googling and was a bit surprised at how little I found from the usual civil-liberties groups; about all I got was this EFA bit on mandatory filtering, which mentions FF as one of several groups who've advocated it without particularly focusing on them. --Calair 05:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've changed 'freedom of information' to 'civil liberties' - the former generally refers to access to government-held information, rather than free access to non-government information, so I think the latter's a more applicable term here. I'd still like to know who these folk are, though. --Calair 05:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we just chop the poll? This is what's causing half the problems. Rebecca 08:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's not essential to the section. I've removed the poll & the unsourced 'some object' bit. As it stands now the section's basically a description of their policy rather than an attempt to discuss the whole issue, which is consistent with the rest of the Policy section and probably for the best. Some of the snipped material might perhaps be worked into Censorship in Australia, which could do with some attention. --Calair 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Much better. I have no objections to this as it stands. Rebecca 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Atheist Family First Members & Candidates

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Anti-Evans web site

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)

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)

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)

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)

FFP view or FFP supporters view?

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)

The incident is already mentioned in the '2004 Federal Election' section. --Calair 01:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Added the other minority groups, removed the 404 link. Does anyone have another link to reference to? I am unable to find one. Timeshift 04:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And now it isn't. Sounds like some POV problems in the article have been introduced.

Environmentalist?

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)

Probably best if we just give their major policies and track record and let the reader decide what that makes them. The FF/Greens antipathy might bear mentioning somewhere in the article, but the 'environmental policy' section may not be the right place for it, since a lot of it is driven by issues other than the environment (LGBT rights being an obvious example). --Calair 12:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I "did" demonstrate their policy viewpoints - they're pro-logging, pro-hunting, pro-dam, and pro-petrol. On the significant contemporary environmental debates, FF and the environmental movement are on opposite sides of the fence. --Robert Merkel 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising your edit. I think the issues you noted are relevant and should be in the section, as should notable issues where FF's policies do agree with the environmentalist movement. (Assuming that there are such, and acknowledging that environmentalism is not monolithic.) But I think it would be better to approach the section in the mindset of "FF policies on environmental issues" rather than "evidence for and against the claim that FF are environmentalist". --Calair 02:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree totally. Every major Australian political party acknowledges the importance of the environment to some extent these days - heck, even the National Party do these days. Furthermore, environmentalism is certainly not monolithic - I count myself an environmentalist and I can't stand the idiocy that Greenpeace and its ilk have descended into. However, that doesn't alter the fact that the major green groups such as the ACF, Greenpeace, the Wilderness society, and so on would find the four policies I listed above highly objectionable, as would the Greens.

On that basis, could somebody reinstate my edit, or reinstate some of the content? User:Beneaththelandslide has just reverted holus-bolus. It's simply a nonsense to describe, without context, FF as an environmentalist party. --Robert Merkel 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, along with some other changes. I added a section on 'relations with other parties' that could do with more detail and citing (particularly on the three major parties). The 'environment' section as it stands is still a bit one-sided, but this would be better remedied by adding material than deleting what's there. --Calair 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dennis Hood and Creationism

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)

Unless it's party policy or was the subject of some sort of scandal, nothing. Kill it. Rebecca 04:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm deleting it. Rocksong 08:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'm reinstating it, is the fact that it's similarly worded really the issue, or the fact that it's there at all? It is manifestly relevant because we're talking about a party which claims to be secular but whose high ranking members are not merely religious but, in Hood's case, quite probably hold some very extreme beliefs indeed. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 01:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, aren't you then making a judgement over what's extreme? We've had Liberal politicians expressing support for Intelligent Design also. I've no problem with the article saying that all elected members (and probably most candidates) are members of Pentecostal or evangelical churches. I have no problem with the Goers/creationism paragraph being in the Dennis Hood article. But I think it's just of place here. I don't think an article on a political party needs to discuss the personal beliefs of one of its reps. Anyway, I'd like to hear what others have to say, though it seems I have one other editor on my side. Rocksong 01:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm making a judgement over what's extreme... in this discussion. In the article I am mentioning that a relevant declaration was publicly stated about him, and it was not refuted. There is no editorialising in the article, in fact it doesn't even say he's a Creationist, just that he was accused of being one and that his failure to address the point was conspicuous.

The reason I believe it is relevant to discuss the personal beliefs of Dennis Hood here is because it goes to what, let's be honest, is the whole point of the "Christian connections" section of the article: that Family First is a de facto Christian party despite its claims to the contrary. Hood is an MLC and a party leader, and an increasingly prominent identity in Adelaide (the party's heartland), not some small fish. He's as much the public face of the party as anyone else. So on the dual grounds of the party's attempts at hiding its Christian foundations, and Hood's eminence within the party, I'd say it's very relevant. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hood... as I have said, and as he has said, public eschews any direct relationship between his party and the Church (a statement repeated over and over again by the party, to its detractors who seem rabid in their pursuit of branding it a 'Christian' party). His own personal views, which have nothing to do with his party, have no reason to be on this page. What is so special about his being a creationist? Why does one representatives' personal and uncontroversial beliefs have to do with the Family First party?

There shouldn't be a "Christian connections" in the article; its equivalent to having a "Communist connections" in the Greens article, "Union connections" in the Labor article, and "Big business connections" in the Liberals article. michael ^talk 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I think all concerned would appreciate it if you tried to keep the conversational hierarchy legible in this discussion thread - it's not difficult.

The fact that Hood and the party at large insist that there's no connection between the church and the party is not in dispute, in fact it's the whole point. It's a controversial aspect of the party whether you like it or not, and as such extremely relevant to an encyclopedia article about it. The article is not meant to be an ad for Family First. The fact that you believe the article shouldn't even contain the whole "Christian connections" kind of undermines any claim you might have about my level of bias. What you're saying basically amounts to saying the OJ Simpson article shouldn't mention the murder case just because he says he didn't do it! :-) -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 04:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you honestly think that Hood has "some very extreme beliefs indeed" you are prejudiced towards him and also absolutely wrong. This is muckraking, nothing more. Hood has public disassociated his party from the Church, attends a small Baptist one himself, and is there on an irregular basis.

But, to the point, this is the Family First Party article, not the Dennis Hood article. It does not belong and has been given negligible media attention. michael ^talk 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pretending I'm unbiased, but nor is Rocksong, who is a party member. We're all biased, the only issue is whether the words in the article are biased. They are referenced statements of fact. Have outlined my case for its relevance above. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: as for my being "absolutely wrong", if you can offer me proof that he's not a Creationist, not only will I put it in the article, but I'll be so relieved you'll have made my day. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely wrong for being prejudiced (stating that he has some "pretty extreme beliefs indeed") and not knowing what you're talking about before putting your hands to the keyboard. michael ^talk 02:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, I have a right to state anything I like on this discussion page, short of personal abuse which I have most certainly not resorted to. What's important is what is on the article page. I have explained that the material I have added is both a) factually accurate and referenced, and b) relevant. You have offered nothing to counter either of these assertions.

I do not have to respect Dennis Hood or the Family First Party in order to contribute to their pages on Wikipedia, I only have to respect Wikipedia. If I don't "know what I'm talking about", then by all means correct me instead of just berating me. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct, yes. Relevant, no. His Christian belief and church connections are relevant, but I still don't see why one particular belief should be singled out, especially since there's been no ongoing controversy about it, in a page which is after all about a party not a person. Anyway, since I'm an FF member I'll bow out. For now :) Rocksong 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The "one particular belief" should be singled out because it's an indication of the extremity of his faith. For a leader of a party which claims to be secular, of course it's relevant... in an article about him, and about the party. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 06:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional: As for "ongoing controversy", I don't think we require controversy, ongoing or otherwise, about his Creationism specifically because I'm only citing the Creationism as a relevant factor/element to what is an ongoing controversy: the question of FF's secular claim versus its Christian affiliations. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 06:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Similar Parties

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)

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)

This whole section remain pure OR and uncited, so I chopped it. Ashmoo 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs don't bypass WP:OR

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)

(Disclosure: I'm an FF member). I agree with those comments. Also, there is the question of what is appropriate to an encyclopedia article. I think the information is way to esoteric for an encyclopedia article. The entry could perhaps be put in the external links section - on the basis that it is interesting and informative extra reading - if editors other than the blog author (and FF members like myself) were convinced it was useful. And if the external link is kept, it should be at the Steve Fielding article rather than here, because the blog entry is more about Fielding than FF as a whole. In summary: definitely remove, possibly put a link at Steve Fielding. Peter Ballard 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it'd probably be reasonable as an external link from Steve Fielding. I don't have a problem with the information's usefulness, only with the nature of the cite, and that's less of an issue with external links. --Calair 07:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As an example of why self-published sources are a problem:

The current version of this article claims: "Senator Fielding has an attendance record of 69% of all Senate divisions, which compares favourably to other independent Senators of recent times". That claim cites this blog post, which says:

"Senator Steve Fielding took office in July 2005 having been elected in October 2004. From that time until the end of June 2007 there have been 588 divisions in the Senate, divided between the Senate sitting as the full chamber and the Senate in Committee... Since taking office, Senator Steve Fielding has been absent for 147 divisions, yielding an attendance rate of 69%." (i.e. an absentee rate of 31%.)

147/588 is exactly 25%, not 31%. I thought maybe the attendance rate was meant to apply only to the full-Senate ones, so I added those up using the APH data. I confirmed the figure of 588 divisions total in this period. The APH figures list 162 full-chamber divisions for 2005, 218 for 2006, and 85 for the first half of 2007. Add these up and you get 465 full-chamber divisions. Divide 147 absences by 465 divisions and you get an absentee rate of 0.316; round that down (not that one should) and you get 31% absent/69% attendance.

But did you spot the mistake? The figures for 2005 cover the WHOLE year, including the period before Fielding took office. The page doesn't split the counts, but it's easy enough to manually count the divisions for the first half of 2005 and confirm that 33 of them were full-chamber divisions. Subtracting that from 465 gives 432 full-chamber divisions during Fielding's term; 147/432 = 0.340, which would mean attendance of 66%, not the 69% reported in the analysis. As far as I can tell, the only way to get that figure of 69% is by inadvertently counting Fielding as 'attending' votes he wasn't even eligible for.

This is the problem with self-published sources. There is no quality control, no guarantee that the person performing the analysis is experienced with such things and knows how to avoid the pitfalls that can easily trip up even a 'straightforward analysis' of published data. It simply isn't reasonable to expect Wikipedia editors or readers to give this level of vetting to every bit of original research that gets posted here to see whether that particular one happens to be sound (indeed, I only vetted one part of this article - it would've taken much longer to check all the data presented). Either we accept such sources or we don't, and I think this is a pretty good argument for "don't". --Calair 09:45, 27 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:

There is no synthesis of new data, merely a count and presentation of the number of votes taken in the Australian Senate. If a particular cited source presents a long list of something but no tally at the end that sorts the list, is merely sorting the list and saying that the list contained x% of A and y% of B original research? If it is, then this definition would exclude much more than it currently does.

Wikipedia's own definition of OR clearly allows for this contribution. It introduces no new theory and defines no new terms. More importantly, the guidelines state if a contribution contains "an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor" (their emphasis) then this is excludable. Even if this contribution was seen as analysis or synthesis, then does it advance a particular view? No. It merely presents a voting record, eminently relevant to the perception of the party, without judgement as to those figure's significance.

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:

The parliamentary records are broken down by year. I did not include the first half of 2005 in any calculation involving Fielding. From the first Senate sitting after the investiture of the new Parliament until 31 Dec 2005 was 174 divisions. From Jan01-Dec31 2006 was 299 divisions. From Jan01-June30 2007 was 115 divisions. This totals to 588, as presented. Fielding was indeed absent from 148 of those divisions, as presented. I concede this represents an attendance rate of 75%, not 69% as originally stated. This has been corrected, and in Fielding's favour. My bad.

Calair is entirely wrong to state I counted divisions for which Fielding is ineligible, as he also is in jumping through hoops to compare full-Senate or committee. I stated no such division between vote-types (for the sake of simplicity).

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

Quoting Wikipedia:No original research, emphasis mine: "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position".

What you are doing here - adding up Fielding's absences, adding up the divisions, etc etc, and the same for other senators, and calculating attendance rates - is "analysis", and not as trivial as it first looks, for reasons I'll get to below. Turning those into 'patterns' - reporting that Fielding votes with the Opposition and Greens more often than the Government, or to compare his performance with other independent senators, is "advancing a position". (The words "compares favourably" should be a bit of a giveaway here.)

"Fielding was indeed absent from 148 of those divisions, as presented." Actually, the version previously presented in your blog claimed 147 absences (confirmed in Google cache here; don't know how long it will be before the cache is updated to reflect your more recent corrections). Assuming that one of these counts is correct, this isn't a large mistake compared to the 69%/75% one, but it's another reminder that self-published research is unreliable. How can we be sure there aren't other addition errors and typos for the other four senators listed here?

Further, the word "absent" doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate records you're working from; they merely record "yes", "no", or "-". Absence is certainly a plausible explanation for most of those "-"s, but presumably the same result would be recorded if Fielding was present and deliberately chose to abstain from voting... and there's another possibility, too.

From your clarification above, you based Fielding's absentee rate on the total number of 588 divisions in that period, both full-senate and committee - presumably counting all "-"s as absences. But did you ascertain whether Fielding is actually a voting member of all those committees? I'm no expert on Senate procedure, but my understanding is that Fielding is not eligible for all commitee votes (and could not be even if he wanted); presumably a vote for which he was ineligible would be represented with the exact same "-" as one for which he was absent. But obviously it is inappropriate to treat them the same way when trying to calculate his participation rate - let alone when comparing them to other independent senators, who may have had more or less opportunity to participate on committee votes.

There are plenty of other questions that arise - are sheer vote-counts a reliable way to assess Fielding's sympathies with other parties? If Fielding votes with the Coalition once on each of five separate issues, and then ten times with Labor on a single issue, a raw count will show that he favours the Labor side twice as often as the Coalition... but no sensible analyst would take that as an overall indicator of pro-Labor sympathies. Even if all the calculations are correct, performing an inappropriate analysis on data will yield misleading results.

I apologise for mistakenly suggesting that you counted the divisions that took place before Fielding was elected... but it did not occur to me that 69% for 75% would be a typo, so it was the only way I could see that you might have got that figure.

"objectors who are admitted members of the party are not following wikipedian principles themselves by trying to censor it" - careful with those plurals. As far as I can tell, the only 'admitted member of the party' who's objected to that data is Peter Ballard. I most certainly am not a FF member. --Calair 06:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted a note over on Wikipedia talk:No original research asking for input on this issue. --Calair 06:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are almost never a reliable source and statistics are often used to lie. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics" is a famous quote for a reason. Wikipedia should never describe the voting of a political figure in anything but the exact wording of a reliable source. WAS 4.250 13:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

To me, the case is clear-cut. Essentially the purpose of the edit is to assert a point of view as to the quality of the member. That potentially breaches the neutral stance, depending in part how it is written. Secondly, an analysis of attendance is fraught with interpretation issues so is rarely a simple counting exercise - again as we are trying to make a point this is not a good thing to do. Thirdly, verification policy suggests that the quality of the source needs to be taken into account, and the likes of blogs are specifically highlighted as poor quality sources. The concept of peer review is important - a blog assertion has not been tested. Next, although we can see that the editor is sincere in believing that the analysis is justified, that is not sufficient - even if we accept the analysis, a reader cannot verify this for themselves with some reasonably accessible source (the way Wiki phrases this is verifiability not truth).

Finally, all policies should be read together rather than picking out particular aspects, and my reading of the total policy is that policy is intended to stop partisan views being allowed to influence a neutral approach to the writing. Ultimately, that is the issue, and we don't really need to quote policy to understand that given Wikipedia is to be a neutral, trusted resource, care must be taken to ensure a non-partisan stance. When an article gets written in a reliable source that says Fielding is a great or poor representative of the people due to his diligent/poor approach to voting, then that can go in, but even then there still needs to be care to present such a view in a non-partisan way. Spenny 13:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Baliset's accusation that I am trying to censor is laughable. I am simply pointing out Wikipedia policy. Actually I think the blog entry paints Fielding in a very good light, and if it was up to my bias I'd love to see it in. He's also accused "FF supporters" (by implication me, since I'm the only one in this debate) of wanting to exclude church connections from this article. I'm sure he'll either provide evidence that I've ever done that, or stick to debating issue at hand. Peter Ballard 07:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

I'm afraid that it is a common misunderstanding with Wikipedia that although what you say has merit, it is not the rules that Wikipedia works by (though I am happy to point out that there is plenty of debate on these issues). Wikipedia specifically states that an editor is not allowed to develop their own views, even where it can be seen that there is the best intent to be neutral. The concepts of original research, and to a certain extent verification, depend upon concepts interpreted in a very specific way, and although I understand why you believe you are correct, what you have explained does not match the Wiki view of the world, as has been explained above.

One element I am never happy about in parliamentary issues, are things like attendance records. There really are so many things that can happen in the systems. For example, in the UK, there has been a system called pairing, where you can agree with an opponent that you will both not turn up to vote. So someone who happens to have a faithful and reliable pairing relationship may appear to have a poorer voting record than someone who just does not bother to turn up. So even though you can put a reliable calculation in there, the presentation of this information is suggesting an interpretation of behaviour which is novel. Someone may have significant responsibilities that interfere with their ability to attend and so on. Even if you could find it referenced somewhere, Wikipedia is also concerned with the quality of resource, so if we had a right wing or left wing publication doing the calculation we would find that suspect, if it was a newspaper, we would have to question the context of the article, if it was some Government Inquiry into attendance, then that might be good, if it was an academic review published in an academic journal the assumption is that it is a worthy peer review, rather than getting some other bloke to check some sums as they could take a critical look at the reasoning, not just the sums. Hope that clarifies - not that Wikipedia policy is that clear! Spenny 17:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a key point. Fielding's attendance record is essentially a meaningless statistic (assuming that he does mostly attend).The Democrats in NSW (for example) have analysed in detail how crossbenchers have used (or not used) their votes in parliament, something much more useful. For example, is someone really "independent" when their voting record shows are more likely to vote "strategically" in the close divisions? Then there's the comparison question - Fielding is compared to previous one-man-band senators but not to other crossbench parties, so again there is the potential to mislead the reader. Obviously it's much more challenging to compare the attendance record of an individual with that of parties with multiple members, but some sort of comparison is surely needed. BTW, "pairing" is generally only available between the major parties and is intended to make it possible for ministers to perform their functions without risking a government's parliamentary majority. Pairs are recorded in the Hansard record of each division so they can be analysed. Also, it is not unknown for an MP to seek a pair to avoid actually having to vote in a way that is personally abhorrent but required by the party. Chrismaltby 02:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

My looking over it isn't peer review. I went far enough to spot one numerical mistake, and to identify methodological concerns, but I didn't check all the numbers for Fielding, and I didn't check any of the numbers for other senators. Even if I'd gone over the whole thing with a fine-toothed comb, I'm a semi-anonymous WP editor with no particular credentials in political analysis; I might be able to show that something is wrong but my approval wouldn't be enough to make the data verified. I've been working in science long enough to know that people make mistakes even with spreadsheets - but as Spenny suggests, the real issue here is not whether the sums are correct but whether they're the right sums to be doing. --Calair 02:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Is Family First a Christian Party?

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)

Officially the ALP is not a trade union. Timeshift 11:35, 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)

Christian MPs. Christian-friendly views. If it smells looks and sounds like a tiger... Timeshift 11:48, 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)

Look harder. I have responded to you in the section below and on your talk page.--cj | talk 13:00, 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)

Links to Christian Groups

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)

As reverting again would put me on the receiving end of the 3RR wooden spoon, I'm prohibited from doing so! But, young IP registered gentleman (or woman, as we can't be sexist), I'd suggest that you check some facts:—

• This particularly party might be more Christian aligned than most, but it is officially secular.
• It was agreed, through much discussion on this page and others, that FFP supports a particular brand of conservatism: that influenced by Christian values, but not explicitly Christian ("Christian-influenced conservatism")
• Both Labor and the Coalition have a majority of Christians in the parliament, and both have people who oppose abortion; so why is this unique to FFP and needs to be so prominently mentioned?

I think debating this with you is going to be about as fun as attempting to put my genitals into an electric pencil sharpener, but I thought it would be polite to try anyway. Michael ^talk 11:46, 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)

There's this ravenous antipathy between FFP and the GP, both spewing out irrational nonsense and completely misrepresenting the other... Michael ^talk 09:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Playing the man is easier than debating the issue eh? Chrismaltby 11:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Much happier hanging out with all the more athletic, jocky, handsome, socially-admired and women-desired lads in the schoolyard. Michael ^talk 11:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever turns you on - and I thought you were such a nice socially conservative, family values sort of person too... But I'd still like to understand why there's a revert war every time someone makes explicit the links between the FFP and (one kind of) organised religion. Surely it's a huge public con job to pretend otherwise - and we do like to stick with the facts and avoid the spin. Chrismaltby

On topic, yes, I agree that we should mention a party's links with groups that support it, but we should do it honestly and neutrally, and not like there's a conspiracy theory behind it, or the boogie man is in bed with them, conspiring to enforce [particular political position] on the population. Michael ^talk 12:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, 203.87.127.18 just included the word "christian" in the party description. That's not particularly controversial if you ask me (or the average voter). The conspiracy theories result when apologists for FF run around denying it (see my reasoning above for their justification). We're just waiting for the cock to crow it seems. Chrismaltby 02:46, 31 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)

Firstly, please don't make assumptions. Secondly, you need to realise that Wikipedia is not about truth; if you can't, you best leave now.

I don't mind if it is mentioned in the lead that although FFP officially denies being a Christian party, they are often/widely portrayed/considered so, if it is attributed to a reliable source. Such would be suitably neutral, IMV. This is not, however, what 203.87.127.18 has attempted, which is why he has been reverted left, right and centre.--cj | talk 12:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats generous of you, But I want to quote the offical website and the president of the party which says it is not. If you then want to say its considered/ etc etc christian based on who who know definition of what a christian party is, you can add that and a supporting reference if you like. I know we should always word things as to not make it look like fact.

The FFP official website states that is not a Christian Party and not linked to the Assembly of God church. How does that sound?

Then you could add xxxx believes the ffp is a christian party. with suitable reference.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.87.127.18 (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia not about truth, that interesting I thought encylopedias are about truth, Do you have a reference on Wiki thats says its not about truth? being presented neutrally doesnt mean not telling the truth, nothing is presented 100% neutrally, its impossible closest thing is truth really. Not left to right to centre, From incorrect to correct, your has been just opposed too, opposed too. I still noticed you havent said your not Assembly of God. If you want to be neutral CJ can start by deleting anything about religion, actually you will have to delete most of Wiki if you want to be neutral.

Looking forward to quote on wiki stating its not about truth, then will get slashing anything that not neutral.--203.87.127.18 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First sentence of WP:V. --McGeddon 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, before you go around 'slashing anything that not neutral', take the time to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Calair 04:03, 1 August 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).

You have the wrong end of the stick. Part of 'neutrality' is that significant viewpoints should be acknowledged. The purpose of the policy section is to state what they are, and there is only one significant viewpoint on that - I don't think anybody challenges the claim that FF's policy opposes abortion, for instance. (There have been some minor issues of interpretation/context/etc on a couple of the subsections, but nothing that really qualifies as a significant debate.)

How do we reconcile this with verifiability? Simple: if there isn't a verifiable, notable source for a viewpoint, it probably isn't significant. FF's rejection of the 'Christian party' tag is verifiable and noteworthy; I think there are also verifiable examples of others applying it to them, and both those can be mentioned here. What WP shouldn't do is make a statement on whether they are a 'Christian party' - especially since we don't even have a good definition for what that term might mean.

In some cases it's easy; the Christian Democrats are Christians both individually and collectively, because their party's official statements explicitly invoke that religion, so describing them as a 'Christian party' is not contentious. FF is rather more ambiguous, and it's better to give readers the (verifiable) information and let them make up their own minds than to interpret it for them. --Calair 04:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous at all. I'm an FFP executive member, and I'm not a Christian. There are plenty of non-Christians in the party. Family First is not a Christian party. Phanatical 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro life means anti abortion

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)

Yes, a "general opinion", and "illegal in most cases". But extrapolating from their pro-life position that Family First "would make [abortion] illegal if they could" is original research ("unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position"), and speculation about the future. --McGeddon 11:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

'Opposed to abortion' does not automatically mean wanting to ban it. I think the world would be better off without cigarettes and reality TV, and I might discourage those things, but I wouldn't support an outright ban; some people take the same approach to abortion. It would certainly be reasonable to guess from FF's stated policies that they'd like to make abortion illegal, but Wikipedia is not the place for guesses, even reasonable ones. --Calair 11:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you opposed to saying they are Pro Life and anti Choice? thats quite odvious as its stated on their website. We wont guess that they actually would like their policys as law.... even tho thats the whole point of them.--203.87.127.18 11:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, there are many things an anti-abortion party could do to discourage abortion other than making it illegal - for instance, they could fund programs promoting alternatives, they could leave them legal but no longer available through the public health system, or they could narrow the circumstances in which it's permitted without altogether banning it.

Second, "pro life" is not synonymous with "anti-abortion". The two very often go together, but "pro life" has broader meanings than that; depending on who's using it, it also covers issues such as stem cell research and capital punishment (as well as several others already covered in this article). It may well be that FF's policy on those other issues is also consistent with "pro life", but that hasn't been documented here as far as I can see. The word itself also has POV problems (see Pro_Life#Term_controversy for discussion). If we have to summarise, "anti-abortion" would be a better term - less fuzzy and reasonably neutral. But really, the quote is short and to the point - does it need to be explained? --Calair 15:01, 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).

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to. --McGeddon 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The article above at the top which has an opinion third party therefore neutral, did you read it?--203.87.127.18 11:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

I think part of that's to do with a shortage of material to draw on. For the big parties, we can look at what they do when they're in government; even in opposition, they're numerous and visible enough that there's plenty to say about e.g. Labor's IR policy. (Also, one of the luxuries of being a minor party of any stripe is not having to flesh out policies in as much detail.) FF is a smaller group with less opportunities to put its policies into practice, so a lot of the time it's hard to find much beyond the official pronouncements. --Calair 15:12, 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)

Policy Formating

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)

Family First are also opposed to The Pill and the IUD

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)

Lead section is too sterile

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)

Added something that sounds about right. Michael ^talk 13:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'll bite, just this once. THIS Family First candidate is not a Christian.Phanatical 17:17, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Centre-Right Party?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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's a prime example (like One Nation) of why right/left labels are fairly useless. One Nation were so far left on economics they were giving the SA a run for their money, but you could never have called them social left in any way, and the media tended to label them "far right". The FFP is right wing on social and some economics (eg voting for WorkChoices and the Telstra sale) but left on others such as those given above. Orderinchaos 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Platform plank on hunting?

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)

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)

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)

How can we break the edit war

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:

1. All FF and Greens members refrain from editing the article, save for non-controversial things like fixing references and dates.
2. Semi-protect, because non-registered users are engaging in the revert war.
3. Other editors work out a compromise. I'm fairly confident that if the remaining active editors do this (i.e. Michael (right-leaning), Timeshift (left-leaning), and Rebecca (not sure)) then it will be reasonable.
4. Again, I suggest that mentioning alleged church links at the END of the lead (i.e. in a 4th paragraph, not in the very 1st paragraph) is not only a reasonable compromise, but appropriate weight.

Peter Ballard 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Family First Party is a political party in Australia. Its policies emphasise socially conservative family values.

The party was founded in South Australia in time to contest the 2002 state elections, when former Assemblies of God pastor Dr Andrew Evans became its first MLC, winning a seat in the South Australian Legislative Council. A second MLC, pharmaceutical executive Dennis Hood, was elected at the 2006 South Australian election.

In the October 2004 federal election it contested seats all over Australia, generally exchanging preferences with Liberal candidates (but in some seats exchanging preferences with the Australian Labor Party). At that election the party was successful in electing their first and at present only federal politician Steve Fielding, Senator for Victoria.

Many of its candidates and members are from conservative Christian backgrounds, although the party itself is officially secular and eschews any religious labels.

The paragraph above is where we need to include something that states—without alleging deception on the part of FF—that it draws its values / support / whatever from a particular community. Also without alleging any conspiracy theories. Also without a negative vibe. Edit away here.

Michael ^talk 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Family First members shouldn't hold back from editing this article if Greens members seek to use it for propaganda purposes. Phanatical 08:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's just stupid. That's warlike. Who's more the fool: the fool, or the fool who follows him? Sorry Phan, but just outlay a new intro here, get a nod for it, and we're set. Michael ^talk 09:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the current sentence from the article, but shifting it to the position Michael suggests? (Many of its candidates and members are from conservative Christian backgrounds, although the party itself is officially secular and eschews any religious labels.) Does that have a negative vibe? It's the best way I've seen so far of putting where the party draws its support from without casting assertions on that. Rebecca 09:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am tentatively *happy* for that (want more opinions; Peter?, Chris? Phan?), but would remove any secular whatever from the first para, so as not to double mention it. Michael ^talk 09:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me, but the new sentence in the first paragraph sounds a bit gramatically strange. Something else to say they're socially conservative? Rebecca 10:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca that it's the best wording, clear without being provocative. I would like to see it a little higher but I can live with it being further down the intro, seeing as it's spelt out in the appropriate section of the article.

As for the strangeness of the first paragraph, (apart from that superflous apostrophe) I think it would be better to get rid of the word "mirror"; how about 'Its policies emphasise...'? Nick 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's only one little grammatical cockup! Michael ^talk 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this new opening is reasonable. I don't like it, but it's an improvement on the constant reversion that some people here seem to wish to perpetuate. The following text is from my personal talk page, in response to Chris Maltby's ridiculous assertions, and I think sums up better than anything said here why Family First members are exasperated by the propaganda:

"Our agenda is family values - the same family values religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and countless others promote, the same family values the Chinese, Polish, Spanish, Lebanese and countless others have built their societies upon. If you want a Christian agenda, take a look at the Christian Democrats. If you want an extremist agenda, look at your own party. But if you want a party that will speak for the interests of Australian families, put Family First." Phanatical 15:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Family Values" eh? Who doesn't support families - the trouble is that so-called family values have become a mask for what is elsewhere called the "Christian Right". I am honest about my affiliation with the Greens, and I am deeply suspicious of the motives of the Family First Party, but when it comes to mentioning the links with the more outlandish end of the Christian spectrum, I think I can be more dispassionate than the FF members who seem to get very flustered about it. I may be at a different part of the political spectrum on most issues, but in my discussions with ordinary voters of all kinds, there is no doubt in their minds that FF is essentially a Christian party. FF may find this problematic (or politically damaging) but it is nevertheless the reality. There's no point attempting to discredit this view by assertions that its some sort of Greens conspiracy. The only counter-argument so far been levelled is that Phanatical isn't a Christian - an that's useful to know, but anecdotal evidence of that kind is very weak. All the statistical evidence suggests that having an AoG background is a big bonus for "success" within FF, even though they are officially "secular". Until someone provides a rational explanation of that which fits in with the secular claim, it has to be considered as propaganda and balanced with the kind of words Michael and others have provided to meet WP standards. Chrismaltby 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Without getting into a discussion about the meaning of "family values", the simple fact is that the assertion that we are a Christian party is not only a misnomer, it's propaganda pure and simple. There is no such assertion that Family First is a Christian party except as perpetuated by politically-biased sources such as the Greens, and a justification that "My friends (at the Greens) said that Family First is a Christian Party, so obviously everybody thinks that" doesn't even meet the standard of balance of probabilities, much less the sort of encyclopaedic standard Wikipedia aspires to.Phanatical 11:09, 10 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)

I never argued for removing church references, quite the opposite. I proposed that FF members AND Greens members refrain from editing the page except for bookkeeping. Alas, the suggestion has not been followed by others. Peter Ballard 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the stat showing just how many canidiates in NSW from same AOG Church

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)

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)

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)

"gay rights" vs "same-sex issues"

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)

Same-sex marriage makes sense. A marriage between two of the same sex. Same-sex issues is far more obscure. Does it mean issues between two of the same sex? An argument between them perhaps? Gay rights is a well-known term. Timeshift 23:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that I've heard it a lot, but I do find it amusing that Gay rights is actually a redirect to LGBT social movements. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:55, 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)

No, I agree with Timeshift here. "Same sex issues" is a vague, unhelpful description, while "Gay rights" is an established subject. It is irrelevant whether you believe they should be rights or not, but that these issues have commonly been discussed within the context of "Gay rights". Recurring dreams 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

A title that is meaningful to a passer-by is the most critical element here. "Gay rights" - whether or not one agrees they are or should be rights - is the correct title. "Same sex issues" is pretty meaningless - issues with one's own sex? That could be a brawl down at the bar which happens to consist entirely of men. Prester John's comment above really does give away his own "absurd POV" - what do one's opinions on the issue have to do with what an encyclopaedia should say about it? Orderinchaos 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I think that "same sex" is about as common and recognizable as "gay rights", I do somewhat see your points. If the article stood as PJ had put it, I would not be convinced enough to change it, but I am not convinced enough to change it now, either. Again, I am most definitely not trying to make a statement about my opinions regarding this issue (if you are confused on that). I am merely pointing out an argument; it is irrelevant whether I believe it or am playing devil's advocate. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that anyone calling each other "absurdly POV" is not exactly keep cool. We *can* deal with this calmly, please. No need to be excited. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 23:57, 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)

Clarification: the article does, but the references do not (trusting John on the latter part). Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 00:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that personal or moral judgements, one way or another, should not come into the naming of this section. It's unhelpful at best. The adoption issue is somewhat of a distraction anyway - most of the ideas being discussed in the gay rights debate are financial in nature, or relating to partnerships, employment, education etc (as is discussed quite clearly in the section in question). Orderinchaos 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"rights" doesn't need a reference - and gay rights, or a lack of, is subjective. "rights" doesn't mean it's their right, it means it's about their right to the rights. Two slightly different meanings. Timeshift 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not do away with the "gay rights" heading (and a few others) and just have one called "social policy", where you don't have to mention gay rights, but you can mention their opposition to them? Michael ^talk 00:56, 1 October 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)

As a FF member, I will stay out of the debate over whether Chrismaltby's edit is sufficiently notable to go into the article. But I will point out that Prester John's assertion, that only a single reporter drew attention to it, is wrong. See e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm Peter Ballard 03:47, 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)

• Family First opposes homosexual adoptions should read Family First opposes LGBT adoption
• IVF treatment for homosexual couples should read IVF treatment for lesbians
• official gay rights-related policy should read official LGBT rights-related policy

The above terms are the official terms. Using Family First's language is OK for their quotes, but the rest of the article should use official language, not Family First terminology.--Lester 05:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Chrismaltby 07:11, 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)

Section trim

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)

Neutrality of this statement

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)

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)

Brokenshire taking over from Evans in SA upper

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)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I saw it added was here[6], when (a) it was uncited, and (b) speculation was reported as fact. Peter Ballard 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

But, presumably based on this article,[7] you turned a "could" into a "will". Nothing personal, but Michael was right to delete it. Peter Ballard 10:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Statues Amendment (Domestic Partners) Bill

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)