Talk:Family First New Zealand

Removed "antigay"
I removed "antigay" because McCoskrie is not doing a good job of being antigay when he says "Gays and lesbians do have a right to form meaningful relationships". http://www.nzherald.co.nz/relationships/news/article.cfm?c_id=41&objectid=10823586 Nurg (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not a great article to link to as proof he's not anti-gay, unless you you're reading it with a monster bias. The above merely proves you are capable of ignoring context. If a someone said 'black people do have a right to form meaningful relationships' but in the context of an argument that was arguing against them being allowed the legal right to marry, then what you quoted would not be relevant.121.73.221.187 (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Family First New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061015125316/http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/31_03_06_Introduction.html/31_03_06_Introduction.pdf to http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Media_Centre/Media_Releases/Releases/31_03_06_Introduction.html/31_03_06_Introduction.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Charitable status
There's a new article about Family First's charitable status problems in the NZ Herald this week I was thinking of updating that section but it looks like it's been edited by the fan club and needs some serious work to restore a neutral POV. Leaving the link here anyway in case anyone else has the time and energy to fix the article and weed out all the weasel words. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

NPOV concern
The language: "Family First has been a pro-family voice" is not really a neutral statement, and is more a statement of opinion and political belief around what pro-family is.

There are also issues later in the article where the term "recent" is used without specifying when (2020, four years ago) 114.23.146.52 (talk) 10:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Helper201 (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement that Family First has been a Christian fundamentalist voice on a number of major public-policy debates in New Zealand" is incorrect. One of the four issues was the anti-smacking law, which was, as the article elsewhere states, opposed by 87% of voters in a referendum. The other debates also show that there was much wider opposition than just from the Christian fundamentalist, so I don't think these debates, and Family First's position on them, justifies a conclusion that they are Christian fundamentalist or have a Christian fundamentalist voice.