Template talk:Christianity in Australia/Archive2008

Family First?

What's Family First doing on this template? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say, going by the press release quoted in Family First Party#Religious affiliation, that if Family First is not officially affilated with any Christian church, it's probably not appropriate that it be on this template, or that this template be on that article. It's basically promoting the POV that religion is the most significant aspect of the party - a POV that I happen to largely agree with, but which I don't think is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. --Stormie (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As the template stands, Family First can't really be in it, but it's a glaring omission if it's omitted. The problem is with the template - it simply lists organisations, and organisations are either "in" or "out" of the template, and there's no room for the nuances of FF being officially secular but having strong church connections. I suggest removing all three political organisations from the template (Christian Democratic Party (Australia), Australian Christian Lobby, Family First Party), and instead create an article called something like Australian Christian Political Organisations, and have the template link to that instead. This article can then say something like, "Family First is officially a secular party but many observers have noted its strong connection to Protestant churches, see the Family First article for more information". It also has the advantage that this article can mention other parties (remember the Call to Australia party?) and lobby groups (I'm sure Australian Christian Lobby aren't the only one). Peter Ballard (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW I forgot the standard disclaimer that I'm a FF member (never held any office in it though). Peter Ballard (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference. "FF being officially secular but having strong church connections" is pulling hairs. Remember the phrase if it walks/talks/acts like a chicken, it's a chicken? Essentially, the article defines the extent that religion has an impact on the party, and as it is a significant amount (amount debatable), should be ok with a christianity template at the bottom. I'm scratching my head as to why this is not the case. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall one case where Family First have called themselves a Christian party, unlike the CDP. This is... sneaky and deceptive. Michael ^talk 03:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The template is Christianity in Australia. It is not labelling them a Christian party. But their members are of a strong christian influence. Timeshift (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So if the party is not Christian, then why is it on this template (Christianity in Australia)? Michael ^talk 04:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the template is still valid in that the party is not Christian but consists of heavily christian members? Timeshift (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But as you said, it is not Christian. If it is not a Christian party, why is it on a Christian template? "Heavily Christian members" is an out-of-the-basket comment; it is not a justification. As Peter stated earlier, there are groups that describe themselves and are considered overtly Christian, but FFP is not one of them. In fact it denies, again and again (and again), that it is not a Christian party. To call it so is essentially deception. I am sure that when Wikipedia gets to the point of including "socially conservative groups in Australia" or otherwise then FFP can find its way there. But to outright lie and say it is Christian? Not on. Michael ^talk 05:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say the party is Christian? The party is comprised of heavily christian members. Timeshift (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

To have it on such a template is to say it is Christian, or it would not be there. Michael ^talk 06:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed. Its addition clearly tips the balance towards implying that it is a covert Christian organisation, at the least. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Christianity in Australia (diff; hist) . . (-33) . . Bidgee (Talk | contribs) (Undid revision 223078507 by 220.253.39.162 (talk) I can't see anything stating that it's a Christian party)

This comment I find so hilarious, and goes quite a way to proving my point here with Family First. The associated people from both the early and modern DLP, are from a christian (catholic) background with catholic beliefs, with catholic-friendly policies. The DLP and FFP should both be on this template. Timeshift (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I find a lack of reply on this disappointing, perhaps it indicates the contradictory nature of the argument put forth for keeping FFP off the template? Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some looking up on Family First but all I can find is speculation that they're an Christian Party however Family First themselfs have never stated that they're an Christian Party. So it doesn't belong on the template. Bidgee (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Did the DLP state they are a Catholic (Christian) party? If not, do you argue they also do not belong on this template? Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a compromise proposal above but no one seems interested. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't address the problem IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshift. Also that would mean any other Religious groups who are in Politics would also have to have there own template which may not go down well with some people. Bidgee (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only DLP/FFP/CDP are christian-influenced parties that have representation. Others are not noteworthy enough to add. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to the template that satisfies the concerns. But watch it get shot down, and watch those people who shoot it down not give any template compromise to boot. So predictable. But wait, that's not WP:AGF, so perhaps i'm pre-judging. Let's see. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't satisfy the concerns because the point is that it's a Christianity in Australia template, not a things-ambiguously-Christian-in-Australia template. A template of the latter would be quite ridiculous. I am very sorry TS, but to have it in the template in any form basically screams "Family First Christian Conspiracy". And there is no such thing. Michael ^talk 07:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit paranoid if you ask me. It doesn't scream that at all. Timeshift (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BL mentioned earlier that it "clearly tips the balance towards implying that it is a covert Christian organisation, at the least." which is akin to what I said; are we both paranoid? No. To have it on here is a lie and a fiction, implying a conspiracy, something covert, something a bit odd. Please realise the good faith with which everyone has talked with you -- no one has dared spark an edit war. But the debate surely must close, I am repeating my points: it is not Christian organisation (lie, fiction) and painting it as one makes it appear that there is something conspiratorial going on. Michael ^talk 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Timeshift (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But that doesn't solve anything, TS. You seem unable to differentiate between a lie (saying Family First is Christian) and the truth (that they are not). Michael ^talk 10:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

But Family First MPs are Christian, and this is the point you have trouble grappling with. I'll also make the telling point that the only people who deny it are supporters of the party. I also note the lack of response to the DLP challenge above. You could pick a fight with these people or these people or these people or these people (and many others) if you want, shame on them for calling the party Christian-based hey! Timeshift (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)