Talk:The Great Australian Party

POV pushing

116.240.112.53 (talk) has added a claim that the UK Supreme Court has found that Culleton's expulsion was wrong at law, citing a blog as a source [1], and deleting material supported by reliable sources, reverting attempts to remove them [2] & [3]. Any comment on the proper approach to this issue ? Find bruce (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That claim about the UKSC is rubbish: the blog does not actually cite a finding by the UKSC, which anyway does not have jurisdiction on an Australian matter; all that the blog has is a reference, no doubt intended to be helpful and indeed historically relevant, by some official of the UKSC. Canley has just removed this material. If it is reinstated again, I too will be glad to remove it. Among us, we may be able to halt this through the 3-revert rule. Wikiain (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

It's been put back in and Canley has taken it out again. It might also be removed as vandalism—adding fake info. Wikiain (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Policy on trial by jury

IP user 1.127.106.194 (talk) has been attempting to comment on the article contents [4] & [5]. These have been reverted on the basis that (1) no reliable sources are cited & (2) comment on the content of an article belongs on the talk page. For ease of reference the more fulsome comment was:

Wikipedia has misrepresented the Great Australian Party policy on Courts and Judges, which is to have them comply with S 79 Constitution and includes judges in court, instead of an Arbitrary Judge. The policy is to extend jury trial universally, not just to alleged criminal, and stop Judges finding false facts and basing a judgment on those false facts. When unelected Commonwealth Public Official can blatently break the clearly enacted Commonwealth law in S 147.1 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) and the Australian Federal Police do nothing about it, the system is clearly broken. Senator Rod Culleton and Wayne Glew are like the canary in the coalmine, warning of the danger of political correctness without common sense. We have only a half democracy without access to jury trial in all matters, civil and criminal.

The State of Western Australia and Federal Court of Australia are deadly afraid of letting a jury find the facts of a case before a Judge rules. This is the worst case of elitism present in the Commonwealth and the restrictions on access to jury trial as a Constitutional right are central to the Great Australian Party political philosophy. The Great Australian Party is asking for a Habeas Corpus to have the major political parties produce the body of the Queen of Australia, in the place of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second and if they could they would. They cannot, and that is why the Great Australian Party have passionate supporters.

If there is a reliable source that the restoration of civil juries is a policy of the party then it would be appropriate to include it in the article. I am at a loss to understand the relevance of s79 of the constitution number of judges, perhaps they meant to refer to s 80, trial by jury. Find bruce (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Fraudulent Government vs the people

I thought Wikipedia was for the truth, not the BS that's written here... Shame on whoever keeps writing shit other than factual information. Facebook and the main stream media are not factual sources. Outback Jim (talk) 01:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Facebook isn't relied on in WP. If you object to particular material, please be specific, with reference to reliable sources. Wikiain (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism threat

GAP supporters appear intent to vandalize this page in future.

Facebook comments by GAP Candidate Jayden O'Connor intending to "write a program" to continually vandalise the page: https://imgur.com/a/ZTQX96V Identification here: https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-24310-204.htm

Thank you for letting us know. And now a Rob Mulholland wants to hang us all - a sort of language that could become criminal. Rofish (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The Great Australian Party Wikipedia entry per se

The Wikipeda page is a series of attacks by this Party's opponents and it should be deleted in it's entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.234.82 (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. Wikipedia however is not the place for assertions of your opinion [6] [7] which have been & will continue to be reverted. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy requires that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If you think there are reliable sources that publish a different view, you will need you will need to be able to cite those reliable sources. --Find bruce (talk) 08:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a neutral point of view

This sentence here:

"This policy contradicts the actions of Wayne Glew, the lead candidate for the Senate in Western Australia in 2019, who had previously made attempts to prevent the seizure and sale of his own residential property due to outstanding rates and levies owed by him to the City of Greater Geraldton."

Is not encyclopedic as it is not written from a neutral point of view. It is the author's opinion that their policy contradicts the actions of the candidate, it is not objective fact. If referencing an opinion piece in a source, it should be clearly stated in the article that this is an opinion only. 1.132.109.75 (talk) 14:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorism

The tag of "conspiracy theorism" in the party infobox does not cite a reliable source and on that basis I am removing it. The requirements pertaining to citation extend equally to categorizations, tags, and inclusion on list pages.

Please cite a reliable source before re-adding this contentions label. --124.182.197.81 (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)