Jump to content

Talk:Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Party or New name

[edit]

I note the Shooters and Fishers Party article refers to a previous name Shooters Party. The Shooters and Fishers Party was registered with AEC 21 August 2007. and the Australian Shooters Party was deregistered in 2006. [1]. The AEC refers to the S&F party as a new party not a name change or abbreviation. These two parties may have similar ideals however it is not the same party renamed. I have removed the previously known as. CamV8 (talk) 06:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it absolutely is the same party renamed. The AEC pages you're looking at (and I hope you don't mind but I changed the link format, since as a ref no one could read it) are not terribly reliable. The de-registration was with the mass de-registration of parties after the tightening of registration rules by the Howard Govt in 2006. They were then re-registered as the Australian Shooters Party, and changed their name to the Shooters and Fishers Party in 2009. Furthermore their own policy document clearly identifies them as the same party renamed. Frickeg (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link for Current Site returns an insurance company page. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:C5DB:1C4F:79EC:C6A8 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) LK Tucker[reply]

Thanks. I removed the wrong one from the bottom of the page. The correct one is in the infobox. --Scott Davis Talk 12:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Siding with Labor

[edit]

Is it really appropriate or unbiased to have the second paragraph of the article end with "SFF sides with Labor on a majority of motions. " Other than being extremely vague, and unsourced it feels like it's pushing a Coalition agenda, trotting out the old "a vote for x minor party is a vote for y major party" canard that comes up.

This feels extremely non netural and biased and inappropriate for inclusion. 49.195.219.148 (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, didn't notice someone made such a bold claim without a source. Catiline52 (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]