Talk:Family First Party

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)