Talk:Health Australia Party

Reverted Edits 30th Nov 2018
Hi all, I attempted to restructure the page from a slightly more neutral POV, but my edits were reverted by Roxy the dog. I'd appreciate a brief explanation as to why the edits were rejected, as well as a potential discussion on how it could be improve. The page isn't a mess, but does bias against the party, and I believe my edits were made in good spirit in a genuine attempt to improve the page. I added well referenced, neutral information and retained the major criticisms of the party, as well as their response. I'm not quite sure what exactly was the matter. Thanks in advance for the constructive discussion. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a look at my edsums again, and perhaps I could have been a little bit clearer, so I apologise for that.
 * Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, defined in WP:NPOV, so we write from a mainstream scientific point of view. You removed a notable part of our description of the HAP in the lead, and I replaced it. The rest of your changes were of that nature too. -Roxy, the naughty dog . wooF 22:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. Respectfully, I'd like to disagree. I don't think my edits were unconstructive enough to warrant a complete rollback; if you wanted to restore certain sections, why not just restore them? I added several NPOV info and links in the History section; these are now gone as well. I'd like to search for a second opinion on this, as I'm not sure a complete revert is warranted, and I dont want to get into an edit war. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see the above discussion. Two edits are being considered here, please check out the page history for more details. Thanks in advance. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * HA! No. Pseudoscience doesn't get the benefit of the doubt here, and if reliable sources are saying the HAP is antivax, then it needs to be mentioned regardless of what the HAP itself says. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Key Phrase: “needs to be mentioned”. My edit mentioned both the criticism and the response from the party. What exactly was unbalanced about that? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What has "balance" got to do with this issue? -Roxy, the naughty dog . wooF 17:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to rework the page once again, to retain the criticisms as noted above, and restore the information I had initially wanted to add. I hope this is a more suitable edit which retains the necessary information on the page. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever you two work out as a suitably balanced NPOV content, can we please not destroy grammar in the process? "Party" is singular. "Party members" and "candidates" are plural. --Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)--Scott Davis Talk 13:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The party exist or no?
This needs some explanation. What does it mean, the party exist or not?

"The party was deregistered by the Australian Electoral Commission in 2022." Mats33 (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)