Talk:Family First New Zealand

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Zealand: Politics Mid‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed "antigay"

I removed "antigay" because McCoskrie is not doing a good job of being antigay when he says "Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/relationships/news/article.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10823586 Nurg (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's not a great article to link to as proof he's not anti-gay, unless you you're reading it with a monster bias. The above merely proves you are capable of ignoring context. If a someone said 'black people do have a right to form meaningful relationships' but in the context of an argument that was arguing against them being allowed the legal right to marry, then what you quoted would not be relevant.121.73.221.187 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Family First New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061015125316/http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/31_03_06_Introduction.html/31_03_06_Introduction.pdf to http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/31_03_06_Introduction.html/31_03_06_Introduction.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charitable status

There's a new article about Family First's charitable status problems in the NZ Herald this week [1] I was thinking of updating that section but it looks like it's been edited by the fan club and needs some serious work to restore a neutral POV. Leaving the link here anyway in case anyone else has the time and energy to fix the article and weed out all the weasel words. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV concern

The language: "Family First has been a pro-family voice" is not really a neutral statement, and is more a statement of opinion and political belief around what pro-family is.

There are also issues later in the article where the term "recent" is used without specifying when (2020, four years ago) 114.23.146.52 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that Family First has been a Christian fundamentalist voice on a number of major public-policy debates in New Zealand" is incorrect. One of the four issues was the anti-smacking law, which was, as the article elsewhere states, opposed by 87% of voters in a referendum. The other debates also show that there was much wider opposition than just from the Christian fundamentalist, so I don't think these debates, and Family First's position on them, justifies a conclusion that they are Christian fundamentalist or have a Christian fundamentalist voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.232.27 (talk) 07:34, 2024 June 5 (UTC)