Talk:Christian Democratic Party (Australia)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Christian Democratic Party (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Political Ideology

The Christian Democratic Party does not have a theocratic programme: it supports the present constitution which includes a constitutional monarchy. It is however a religiously-based party.

Can anyone tell me how to file a request for article deletion. The articles in this section are themselves well-written, but they have nothing to do with theocracy. Theocracy is a form of government, not a moral or ethical programme 83.85.7.169 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "theocratic" does not appear in the article. What are you talking about? Adam 06:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The word "democratic" is clearly part of their name so I don't think we need to worry about misleading readers. Suggestions of deletion are ridiculous (unless the party changes its name again!). But to make it look more professional I have inserted a template that will highlight "Christian democracy" as their political ideology. Please augment it with a logo or colours if you're better at this than me.
Does anyone know whether or not CDP Au is affliated with Christian Democrat and People's Parties International? Nick 1 January 2006.

A new can of worms! I suppose this means we can't remove the neutrality dispute tag just yet.

Xorkl000, why do you say that CDP are not typical of Christian Democracy? Just because they're more conservative than the European version? They're not Christian Theocracy or Christian Socialism and I don't think Social Conservatism does justice to the religious origins of their beliefs. A simple solution would be to find out whether they are part of CDPPI (my question above) but their site is still down. I've left your Social conservatism link as I think that is also true, albeit secondary to the Christian aspect. Nick 16:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to be a stirrer... since the British Monarch position includes being head of Anglican Church (one of the largest religious groups in the world), British monarchy is a form of theocracy... 220.253.20.136 09:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statements

Because they are simply that, (personal) statements. They hold no basis other than personal opinion from a writer who wants to label the party whatever they so wish, defaming it. - Gt 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

While the party is clearly not moderate, the current description employs weasel-words and attributes sentiment that is unverifiable. That the mainstream rejects the CDP is not true in practice (even though one might expect it when considering their policy differences on paper). The best example I can give is when Nile suggested banning the chador in public places, Howard (king of claiming "the mainstream" as his own) said "I don't have a clear response to what Fred has put. I mean, I like Fred and I don't always agree with him, but you know Fred speaks for the views of a lot of people." [1]
But without some criticism, paragraphs 4-6 read like a press-realease! However they are a good example of policy, so I'll move some of this to Fred Nile, just so that it doesn't go to waste. Nick 16:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Your replacement phrase was very critical and almost as demeaning as the first 'statement' I removed. I've changed it. - Gt 02:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
The sentence was not meant to be a normative criticism -- it contains no PoV. It is simply a description of the party's position on the political landscape and there is nothing demeaning about that. I think Moyes's comment amply demonstrates that the CDP does not wish to join the mainstream, especially when he says that he opposes all of the ALP and many of the Libs. Nick 03:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It did contain pov. You're not simply writing the facts, your interpreting them as you will and writing them that way. I've lessened it to simply "The Christian Democratic Party perceives various policies of both the major parties as an attack on their traditional views" - which is ample enough to state their position without going out of the way to attack/insult them. - Gt 05:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Removing the compromise section, however, is utterly misleading - it represents them as a mainstream party, when they are patently not. Ambi 06:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Define mainstream. I'm assuming you're defining it simply by personal opinion, because you couldn't be defining it based on the party's success (Two seats in the NSW Parliament is no easy feat). You are purposely making this party appear non-mainstream to insult and defame it - on an encylopedia! Where are the references to the Greens, Democrats, etc not being mainstream? You are perfectly aware of what you are doing. - Gt 06:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In 1999, Fred Nile came within a whisker of losing his seat to the Registered Clubs Party. The party is non-mainstream - they represent a small minority of particularly conservative Christians. There's a reason Family First has been far more successful at slipping into the religious politics niche in three years than the CDP have in twenty. Ambi 06:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
You are defining mainstream by personal opinion. You know this. It is not up to you to decide this. - Gt 07:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What about your own personal opinions? You're seeking to remove any context whatsoever in the hope of portraying them as a greater political force than they are. Ambi 07:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A far better measure would be the question of policy -- is there significant policy overlap with the major parties? (Even the Outdoor Recreation Party gets members in state parliaments!) Or is the minor party in question far enough removed that Labor and Liberal look the same? The Moyes quote clearly puts the CDP outside the mainstream as it rejects the whole ALP, the Democrats and half the Libs. On this definition, yes, The Greens would happily describe themselves as outside the mainstream, but that's hardly an issue for this page! Most importantly, "mainstream" is not some sort of compliment such that being outside it is an insult. ("In the political wilderness" would be the appropriate insult!) It simply provides a context for the party's policies, which is necessary. Just leaving the quotes, prefaced with 'Moyes explained to Christians why they should vote for the CDP' makes it a press-release, not an encyclopaedia article. Nick 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
It remains that you, not fact, not truth - are deciding (through your own point-of-view) that this party is "at odds with the mainstream of Australian politics". I have no wish to "game the system" - I only want fair, truthful, npov articles free of personal bias. - Gt 12:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Then come up with an alternative wording, instead of just reverting anything that might give any context to the paragraph. Nick proposed a compromise version, and you ignored it (not even bothering to respond) and reverted it repeatedly. Now he's given a very good explanation for why removing said statement is unacceptable, and again, you throw mud and don't even try to address his concerns. Ambi 12:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Michael, it seems to me that your own POV is informing your actions. How can you expect an neutral outcome if you yourself don't approach it from a neutral perspective?--cj | talk 12:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I have written a compromise sentence in the form of "The party does not identify with the policy of several Australian political parties, not simply because they are exclusively Christian (the majority of Australian politicians do identify as Christian) but because of strong ideological differences". I hope it brings an end to this. - Gt 13:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. This is a case of weasel words. "The party does not identify with the policies of..." doesn't mean anything - it doesn't even make sense. What is it supposed to say? It is an attempt to word around the obvious - that a party that clearly distances themselves from at least 3/4 of the political spectrum and maintains a tiny voter base is not mainstream. Ambi 13:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The Greens distance themselves from every single other party on the spectrum but I am yet to see this article being given the treatment that one has benefited from, for example:
"The Greens have differentiated themselves from the major parties in a number of high-profile policy positions."
Wouldn't that sentence fare well in this article as a replacement? "The Christian Democratic Party have differentiated themselves from the major parties in a number of high-profile policy positions". It gives the same meaning (differentiating them from other political parties), without weasel-words that are simply there to insult it - "at odds with the mainstream of Australian politics".
Please act reasonably. - Gt 13:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Specify what you mean by "high-profile policy positions"? CDP is a fringe party (a microparty even). They are not focused in the "high-profile" policy areas; they have their own niche concerns.--cj | talk 13:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Michael's version is still using weasel words which tell the reader absolutely nothing, doesn't really make much sense anyway, and worse, reads like a press release. It's an attempt to work around an uncomfortable truth by weaseling to the point of incomprehensibility.
The Greens analogy is barely worth responding to, apart from noting that a) the Greens have many times the vote of the CDP, so the two are not in the slightest comparable, and b) the sentence didn't make any sense in the article either, but that is not a reason to spread it here - rather, it means that it needs killing in the Greens article too. Ambi 13:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You're using very harsh language for someone who's supposed to be in a somewhat position of authority since you are an Adminstrator Rebecca. "Barely worth responding to". Nice to know that actually discussing the issue gains more rudeness than editing does. And to make it worse - you're actually suggesting to halt discussion. I've also noticed that Cyberjunkie (despite being considerably more reasonable than yourself) has removed his opinions on evangelism from his user page.
Since you have simply decided to disregard something that I brought to light I would therefore suggest changing the sentence once again: "The Christian Democratic Party opposes a number of social policies of the other major political parties, but not because of their Christian-exclusivity - most Australian politicans are Christian. Gorden Moyes explained: ..."
I would appreciate polite, reasonable input to help solve this. - Gt 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid the sentence still doesn't make any sense (The Christian Democratic Party opposes a number of social policies of the other major political parties, but not because of their Christian-exclusivity), and now is additionally deliberately misleading, by impliedly claiming that it represents most Australian Christians. 14:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Implying? The article itself already states that it doesn't represent all Australian Christians: "a small but stable electoral base among Protestants in New South Wales, particularly in the "Bible Belt" suburbs of north-western Sydney and in some country areas" and "little support among Catholics or outside NSW". In this context, I'd say my suggested replacement sentence is perfectly sufficent since it can't imply anything when the article already states otherwise. - Gt 14:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
"CDP opposes a number of social policies of the other major political parties...". This puts CDP on the same footing as the main parties - it simply is not; it is a sectional, micro party.--cj | talk 14:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a grammar error, my mistake. "The Christian Democratic Party opposes a number of social policies of the major political parties, but not because of their Christian-exclusivity - most Australian politicans are Christian. Gorden Moyes explained: ..." - Gt 14:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
...but what is that supposed to mean? I can't make head nor tail of it, and I'm not just saying that to be a pain in the ass. Ambi 14:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense.:
  • The CDP are Exclusively Christian "their Christian exclusvity"
  • Even though most politicans are Christian, the CDP's interpretation of Christian views most likely differ from most Australian MP 'Christians' "not because of their Christian-exclusivity - most Australian politicans are Christian"
  • Meaning that many MP's interpretation of Christianity is not an obstacle to their party's social policies "The Christian Democratic Party opposes a number of social policies of the major political parties"
  • It explains that the CDP does not represent all Christian opinion, without innappropriately labelling them "at odds with the mainstream".
The sentence compresses this into simple readable english. I really can't make it any simpler than that. - Gt 14:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
These are weasel words if I ever saw it. You just stated that "their interpretation of Christian views most likely differ from most Australian Christians". It doesn't make clear why being Christian-exclusive would have anything to do with their views differing from other Christians, or what their interpretation of Christianity is supposed to have to do with being "an obstacle to their social policies", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's hardly simple readable English. Instead of dealing with this in a way that might make it more NPOV, but retain its accuracy (i.e. rewording the "at odds" bit, while still noting that they're really not mainstream), you're drowning the thing in weasel words that still make it completely incomprehensible. Ambi 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The sentence on it's own states the position well. The sentence, integrated into the rest of the article, perfectly states the position. I'm not about to suddenly fill a article on a reasonable political party with derogatory terms as you so wish. "really not mainstream". That's simply personal opinion. - Gt 15:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
In other words, you completely ignored my explanation of why the sentence doesn't make any sense, or possibly didn't bother to read it at all. More than that, you're now twisting my words. I didn't suggest putting "really not mainstream" into the article - I suggested adapting the wording that was there before to alleviate any NPOV concerns while retaining accuracy and some semblance of comprehensibility. Please come back when you're willing to discuss the text rather than throw around ad hominems. Ambi 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
You are hands-down the rudest editor I have ever encountered so far on wikipedia. "really not mainstream" was an indication of your personal bias, and not what you "intended" to place into the article. You also accused me of not ignoring your explanation and twisting your words. I can't explain how irritating dealing with you is - you are a overly biased editor who should not be in any position of 'authority'. My sentence is free of pov and fits in well in both it's context and with the rest of the article. Quit stalling, be reasonable. - Gt 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Your sentence is free of POV, but that's only because it doesn't make any sense at all. I explained above why this is so, and you're welcome to fix it, but instead you've just played me instead of the ball. So it isn't lost amidst the rhetoric, I'll repeat what I said above. "These are weasel words if I ever saw it. You just stated that "their interpretation of Christian views most likely differ from most Australian Christians". It doesn't make clear why being Christian-exclusive would have anything to do with their views differing from other Christians, or what their interpretation of Christianity is supposed to have to do with being "an obstacle to their social policies", whatever that is supposed to mean. It's hardly simple readable English. Instead of dealing with this in a way that might make it more NPOV, but retain its accuracy (i.e. rewording the "at odds" bit, while still noting that they're really not mainstream), you're drowning the thing in weasel words that still make it completely incomprehensible." Ambi 15:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Accuracy?

Why the disputed factual accuracy notice, Ambi? I thought only PoV was in dispute. Nick 14:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael's edits are not only biased, but are also inaccurate. Ambi 15:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nile and Other MLC Representatives

The paragraph about CDP MLC representation has been restored and corrected, as has the bibliographic reference to Niles biography as the source. Also, I fail to see why the original whole paragraph and biography were deleted. Surely Niles' own biography must constitute a valid source of independent documentation, and it does record those specified events.

User: Calibanu 14:51, 03 May 2006

Calibanu you are getting John Hannaford who was a Liberal member of the NSW Legislative Council mixed up with John Bradford, the former Liberal Member of the House of Reps for McPherson. This extract from a press release (no longer up on the CDP website, but still viewable here [[2]] states it was Bradford and not Hannaford. So I am going to change it now, and if you can provide a better reference other than a link to the front page of the CDP website to suggest I am wrong, then by all means change it back.
The Christian Democratic Party (CDP) Council announce their endorsement of Mr John Bradford to take Elaine Nile's place in the NSW Legislative Council.'
Mr. Bradford has had a long association with the Fred Nile and the CDP. He was Federal Member for the Gold Coast based seat of McPherson from 1990 until 1998. In 1998 he resigned from the Liberal Party to contest a Senate seat for the CDP. He has been active in rebuilding the Queensland CDP State Branch as Queensland CDP Coordinator. Teiresias84 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I knew it didn't look right. Ambi 05:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unwarranted Deletion

I made an edit to this article, which was deleted within hours, but which I feel should have been retained. Paragraph 3 reads: 'It (the CDP) has little support among Catholics or outside NSW' to which I added '..although the party does enjoy a measure of support in Western Australia.' Perhaps this could be worded differently, but it is in fact true. I provide the comparative statistics below:

CDP Election Results

Australian Federal Election 2004

House of Representatives NSW - 1.22% WA - 2.25%

Senate NSW - 2.61% WA - 1.88%

NSW State Election 2003

Legislative Assembly - 1.73% Legislative Council - 3%

WA State Election 2005

Legislative Assembly - 2.93% Legislative Council - 2.28%

These results demonstrate that the CDP's progress in WA is comparable to that of NSW. It's true that their support in the rest of the country is significantly lower than in NSW or WA. The WA results are probably more impressive than in NSW given that a)The party's base and its leadership is centred in NSW. b) The party has an advantage in NSW given that it has elected representatives in Parliament, yet despite this it doesn't poll any better in NSW than WA. c) The only reason the CDP has managed to continually win seats in NSW but not WA, is the favourable electoral system in NSW (ie. Upper House quota in NSW - 4.55%, Upper House quota in WA ranges between 12.5% & 16.6% depending upon seat). --Mrodowicz 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit was not deleted. I reverted your addition with a request for a citation to support the claim. I have no problem with the statement provided it is sourced. Thanks, --cj | talk 03:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CDPlogo2002.gif

Image:CDPlogo2002.gif 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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)