Talk:WAFamilyFirst.com Party

One Nation involvement

Your changes are factually incorrect. The Alliance is between Dan Sullivan and The WA Branch of The Family First Party. The fact former One Nation MPS attended a public Launch event does not verify that they were anything but observers, regardless of how the media would like to portray the new party. The Reference given to John Fischer actually varifys that they are not members, only that if asked they may consider it and then assuming the Party would let them join. To quote the article "I am not at the moment looking at taking any position but I would certainly go out of my way to help Dan Sullivan and Family First succeed in this state," he said .Ripplewiki (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ripplewiki. I reworded the sentence again >Here<. It more closely follows what is said in the reference, to say that 3 One Nation MPs were involved. The word "involved", as used by the ABC report, doesn't imply that they will become Members of Parliament, but it does imply an involvement greater than sharing a drink at the opening party night. --Lester 02:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lester. The change you have made is better, but again is not accurate. The merger is between Dan Sullivan and Family First Party WA so please restore my last version on this point. That fact is that there is no alliance with Former One Nation MPs. To be more precice, Dan Sullivan has joined as a Member of Family First WA and nominated to their State Executive. Which in effect makes them a new Parliamentary Party (official status) in Western Australia. According to the Youtube video on their web site they have also applied to have their new name recognised by the Electoral Commission as WAFAMILYFIRST.COM - the first .COM named party wich makes it quite historic. There is no alliance with anyone else, as much as the media would like to paint that picture.Ripplewiki (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ripplewiki. I believe you are saying the references from the ABC are incorrect. The only problem is, if we say that "It began as an alliance between former liberal party member Dan Barron-Sullivan and the Western Australian State Branch of the Family First Party" (as you recently added), then that becomes 'original research', as we don't have a reference to say anything about the previous WA branch of the Family First party. There is also no reference to say that the One Nation officials attended the launch party drink night. What the reference says is that the former One Nation MPs are involved in the party. That's what the article should say also. We need to find reliable external references to back up any claim. --Lester 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lester. I completely agree we do need "reliable sources" and yes the ABC article cited is just one Journalist's speculation - it does not make it a fact. If there is a source that varifies there was any other alliance other than the discussions between Dan Sullivan and Western Australian Branch of Family First and the fact that Dan joined the Party, it would be interested to see it. Ripplewiki (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ripplewiki since when have the facts got in the way of a good story. It is obvious that the media are looking to paint WA Family First as a fringe party but everything I have seen on their website says that they are trying to position themselves as a mainstream alternative. Its a pity the press won't give anybody new a fair hearing Undergroundpolitix (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• I can see no support for the assertion the ABC article cited is just one Journalist's speculation and is anything other than a reliable source. Any variation from the facts supported by the ABC article needs to be supported by a reliable source in turn.--Matilda ^talk 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For a more thorough discussion than the ABC report, see here: Family values party an odd political coupling by Paul Murray in The West Australian. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Matilda, what makes the ABC press story a factual reference in regard to an alliance - other than speculation? An alliance suggests an agreement. The only fact we can be sure of was what was announced at the launch event - ie that Dan Sullivan has formally joined with the Family First Party. Again, we would need to see some documented evidence before making the claim that Dan Sullivan is aligned with former One Nation Members. The Paul Murray artical does add to the discussion and makes the statement that "..Graeme Campbell, Frank Hough and John Fischer were associated with the launch, but it is unclear if they will embrace, or be embraced by the new party". After speaking to those that attended the launch they said that approximately 80-100 people at the event - members from all sides of politics, so my cynical side asks why did the ABC choose to single out only the One Nation attendees for their inclusion in the cited story? Ripplewiki (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the facts we know: The 3 former One Nation MPs did turn up at the launch (as per TheWest reference provided by Peter Ballard). They are vocally supporting WA Family First (as stated in the ABC reference). We don't yet know how far their involvement will go. But they have some involvement. All the references (ABC, TheWest, and Yahoo7) single out the 3 One Nation MPs. Wouldn't it be accurate to say the 3 O.N. MPs are "involved"? --Lester 04:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Essentially you need to read our guideline on Reliable sources - if you wish to dispute the ABC as a reliable source you must do so using another source not just your own opinion. The ABC meets the guideline as a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I note also that another reference quoted in the article http://au.news.yahoo.com/080620/21/17db8.html states It has not announced its candidates although a number of former One Nation candidates attended today's launch and will consider running for the party. I can't see on what basis you consider this assertion not a fact.--Matilda ^talk 05:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Lester, I agree with what you have said in general, but we don’t know for sure what if any involvement they have or will have on the Party. It would seem they (former O.N supporters) are happy to show vocal support for the Party, but we just don’t know if they have any formal relationship or influence? For example are they members - No? Are they on the executive? - Not that I am aware of. Are they endorsed candidates - No? Can we agree it would be appropriate to allow time to see who the Party actually announces as candidates or see what they announce as their policies before branding them or assuming anything beyond the current media speculation Ripplewiki (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has never stated that the former One Nation MPs are "endorsed candidates". It just said they "involved", as per the ABC reference, though it's now been deleted. --Lester 05:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that even the One Nation MPs are not involved with One Nation. Don't forget there was a huge implosion within that party in the 2001-2005 term of politics in Western Australia, and none of the three were members by the end of their terms - they'd joined the New Country Party by that stage. That being said, it is correct to say that the former One Nation MPs have vocally supported the party from the get-go. We have no idea who they will endorse as candidates other than Dan Barron-Sullivan, so it is useless to speculate at this point. The article at the West said: "One-time moths to the Hanson flame such as Graeme Campbell, Frank Hough and John Fischer were associated with the launch, but it is unclear if they will embrace, or be embraced by the new party." An editorial piece in today's newspaper said: "The icing on the cake of this particular perception was the announcement late last week that Dan Sullivan had founded a new party, called (without any apparent comic intent) WAFamilyFirst.com, made up of himself and a ragbag of recycled One Nation stalwarts." Another West article on 21 June claimed they were political advisers. These are not sources one could easily use (other than the first one) but they do at least point in the direction we should maybe be looking as new reliable sources emerge closer to the election. Orderinchaos 11:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)