Talk:Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)

Re-created

I have re-created this article owing to several election pages linking here. Any political party contesting a federal election deserves an article. Frickeg 09:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

A major contributor to this article is strongly associated with the topic. User:Jef04 has signed his name as John Flanagan here, here and here. The party's website says "John Flanagan is the candidate for Cunningham and is the Deputy Registered Officer of the Non-Custodial Parents Party (Equal Parenting)." Because of this, the article must be inspected closely to see whether the text faithfully follows the published sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about the issue was brought to Jef04's talk page here: User_talk:Jef04#Conflict_of_interest. Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

My recent edits

This represents part of a post on User talk:Jef04) but I am also placing it here since it refers to the article.

I have reverted many of the edits that you made earlier today (my time at least!). You have reinserted paragraphs of unverified original research, for example about the reason for the Labour loss in Cunningham. There was nothing in the Scott Bennett note to support the text that the actions of the other parties in terms of redirecting their votes away from the ALP had any effect on the election. He names 4 other reasons in fact. (BTW, hosting the Scott Bennett paper on your website is likely a copyright violation; WP can't link it per WP:ELNEVER). Overall, much of that section was also irrelevant to the topic of the political party, and seems to act as advocacy for why it might be worth voting for a small party. Similarly, I have deleted the section about the doubling of votes etc, which though it may be true, appears to be using (somewhat selective?) original research to push a particular point of view.

I have also reinserted the percentages of the national and state vote, because the material is well sourced and is prominently displayed on the election results websites. I do agree that given that the party only had a limited number seats these numbers may not be provide the fullest or fairest picture of the party's electoral success. I imagine you could find the percentages of the votes that the party got in each of the seats they ran in? I think this goes beyond what I am willing to spend time on to research, but if you found this information and provided the information and citations on the talkpage of the article then editors can look at adding the material.Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of links

Someone has been inserting links to this political party into articles on Australian family law-related topics. I don't believe that is WP:NPOV since, while this political party has opinions/policies on that topic so too do other political parties (including all the major ones), and to be neutral we'd have to link to other political parties also. Furthermore, this is a very minor Australian political party, so linking to it but not the more major ones implies it is more notable than it actually is. So I have been removing those links, e.g. [4], [5] and [6]. SJK (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Substantial reduction

I have just done a serious prune of this page, which was bloated with vast amounts of trivia and almost all written in unencyclopedic language. I would ask @Jef04: to refrain from editing the page further due to the conflict of interest concerns identified above, and instead to propose changes here for consensus. Frickeg (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)