Talk:Australian Family Association

Untitled

Now, before the criticism starts, I'm a card carrying member of the ALP and a social progressive. However, this article makes statements like "people say" and this is against Wikipedia policy.

Many commentators have criticised the association for its condemnation of family types which do not fit the nuclear model, and for opposing moves to give equal access to government services for families headed by same-sex couples.

Such statements have lead many to suggest that the AFA is a highly prejudiced organisation, attempting to enforce a fundamentalist Judeo-Christian perspective on the mostly secular nation. Others have claimed that the association's literature is based on research which is not peer-reviewed.

Who said these things? I mean.. who IMPORTANT said these things :-D. - 144.136.188.84 07:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A year and a half later the article is still compromised by the use of weasal words. Like the "socially progressive ALP card carrying member" (as opposed to a card leaver-at-home, I suppose) I have no sympathies with the AFA but its not good enough for an encylopedia article to say "Some commentators have criticized" or "Some have claimed that". So I've tagged the article.Teiresias84 02:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but this organisation appears distinctively Christian. If this is indeed so, then I propose that this be included within the article. Otherwise it is hiding its agenda from an unknowing public, which is at its core sinister and cowardly. It hints of clouding its intent of preserving (apparently) foundational Christian values in order to deceive non-Christian observers. As I have said, I may be wrong and if so, this can be discarded. But if it is a Christian organisation, include it in the article to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.118.121 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious to me that they are a conservative Christian organisation and, yes, they are too cowardly to say so (in the same way as others like Family First Party. We just need some good references to support the claim. Background information on the people involved and the ties of this organisation to other organisations could be included. Barrylb (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaints (New here and don't really know how to edit yet, or I'd make some changes myself...): 1) No citations or references; 2) First sentence needs changing, for example to "...dedicated to what it calls 'the traditional family unit'."; 3) First sentence of "Beliefs" section: Should start with something like "The AFA...", not "It..."; also uses the ambiguous term "traditional family" again; 4) The section "Influence" is completely unacceptable - subjective, unverifiable, and presumably little more than propaganda / wishful thinking on the part of the author. --PollyWaffler —Preceding unsigned comment added by PollyWaffler (talk • contribs) 06:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the title of the section "Sydney Morning Herald article critical of AFA" should probably be changed as well. "Criticism" or "External articles"...? Here's another article about the AFA, from The Age, which may be a useful inclusion somewhere: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/06/1089000155660.html PollyWaffler (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK... I know what I'm doing now (more or less!) so I'll make the changes myself... PollyWaffler (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AFA logo.jpg

Image:AFA logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sterilisation of article

Good work, AFA, on your complete sanitisation of this article, including your cowardly removal of all references to Christianity. What's wrong? Are you ashamed of being Christians? Will it please your god to see you behaving in such a dishonest and underhanded way? Systematically removing all criticism and all links to critical external articles is not going to make the criticism go away - if anything, it just gives people an extra reason (as if we need one) to be critical of you. You are as transparent as your opinions are archaic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.113.25 (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"The family"

The AFA's definition of "the family" is a very specific one and not in any way neutral. They do not accept single parent families as "families". They do not accept families with homosexual parents as "families". They expressly advocate against those sorts of "families". So it's important not to blandly say they advocate for "the family" without specifying precisely what sort of "family" they mean. Garth M (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Unfortunately, any attempt to clarify "what sort of family they mean" will be reverted as part of their systematic sanitisation of the article.150.101.113.25 (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)