Talk:Health Australia Party

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Health Australia Party article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force.

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Health Australia Party 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

AjnaCondor (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
Healthy Life HAP (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What has "balance" got to do with this issue? -Roxy, the naughty dog. wooF 17:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]