Talk:HEART Party: Difference between revisions

 

Line 4: Line 4:

{{WikiProject Alternative medicine }}

{{WikiProject Alternative medicine }}

{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}}

{{WikiProject Environment|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Climate change|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=low}}

}}

}}

{{Notable Wikipedian|ShadowAdvocate}}

{{Notable Wikipedian|ShadowAdvocate}}

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 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Some or all of the changes weren’t supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Consider re-submitting with content based on media, books and scholarly works.

There are a number of corrections required for this page. Please see the following that requires correction:

1. The HEART Party is currently registered Federally (reference: AEC Register of Political Parties) and in NSW.
2. In August 2023, IMOP and HAP proposed to merge, but HAP withdrew from the merger on 10 October.
3. “HAP withdrew from HEART on 10 October, a week after the new party was registered with the Australian Electoral Commission.” Correction: IMOP changed their name to HEART. HEART did not register as a new party. Other parts of this page state this correctly, while other sections refer to HEART as being a newly registered party.
4. The decision to deregister the party Federally has been set aside and has been replaced with a new decision on 4 February 2025 (reference: Delegate decision set aside – Health Environment Accountability Rights Transparency (HEART)). Therefore, the section published “Deregistration at the federal level” has been revoked and is now outdated information. “[t]he Commission is satisfied that the Party should not be deregistered under s 137(6) of the Electoral Act. The Commission has decided under s 141(4)(c) of the Electoral Act to set aside the decision under review and substitute the decision to take all such steps as are necessary give effect to its decision, including to maintain the registration of the Party by re-registering the Party in the Register.”
5. The article says: “see also Barbara O’Neill”. Note that Barbara is a committee member nor a candidate of the HEART Party (reference: Contact Us).

HEARTParty (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @HEARTParty. Please note that your engagement on this topic is subject to Wikipedia’s Conflict of Interest policies, and I would encourage you to review the best practice guidelines on WP:COIEDIT. Additionally, your username implies shared use and is promotional which is a violation of Wikipedia’s username policy.

In regards to the content changes:

1 and 4. The restoration of HEART Party at the federal level has now been included, that a later review requested by the party allowed for the re-registration based on a newly provided membership list.

2 and 3. I quote, word for word from HEART’s own Facebook page, “Thankyou to Graham Hood & John Larter for your time this morning as Michael O’Neill, founder and President of Informed Medical Options Party – IMOP announce our exciting merger with Lisa Bentley, Registered Party Officer for Health Australia Party (HAP)”, and Michael O’Neill saying “we have been in negotiations for a while and we have decided to merge [with HAP]” ([1] / Wayback Machine capture). Trying to spin this as “proposed to merge” is misleading and untruthful.

5. Barbara O’Neill is a vocal pseudoscience promoter and alternative medicine conspiracy theorist. Her relationship to the party, through her husband, is of material relevance to the general public and the broader political and social context. She was also a featured speaker during a December 2024 fundraising event, and is heavily featured on the party’s website and socials. The party’s founder, her husband, also has consistently used collective terms like “we” when talking about Barbara and the party. Asking for references to her to be removed is extremely suspicious and would be unjust and imbalanced censorship.

Tim (Talk) 14:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following information regarding the deregistration of the party and subsequent appeal hasn’t been written accurately:

“The party was also previously deregistered at the federal level between August 2024 and February 2025, as it failed to meet minimum membership requirements at the time.”

This is not accurate. Under law, an appeal completely overturns the previous decision which has the effect of rendering the previous deregistration as being invalid. In other words, the former deregistration of the party no longer exists.

The following demonstrates appropriate wording:

“The party faced deregistration at the federal level in August 2024 due to not meeting minimum membership requirements, but this decision was later set aside upon appeal on 4 February 2025, allowing the party to remain registered.”

The subsequent section on “Deregistration at the federal level” therefore also needs to be removed or amended, since the information provided in this section has been overturned. The AEC has likewise removed the previous decision of deregistration from its list of “Party registration decisions and changes” because the previous decision no longer exists. The section “Re-registration for federal elections” likewise also needs to be amended, because the party was not re-registered. The outcome of the appeal means that the party remained registered for the entire period. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ShadowAdvocate – The English Wikipedia is not generally accepting of the subject of articles attempting to dictate content, especially when they’re asking for the removal of appropriately cited or potentially controversial content. I’d encourage you to demonstrate that your account isn’t for the sole purpose of influencing reporting around the HEART party by contributing to other Wikipedia articles as well.

As stated in the decision, s 141(4)(c) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act allows for the substitution of a decision by the Commissioner, hence why the AEC website has substituted the previous decision notice with the ‘appeal’ outcome notice (also noting, we don’t necessarily follow the AEC). It does not change the fact that during that period between the original decision and the HEART party’s plea for reconsideration, HEART was in fact deregistered – a substitution decision does not change history. Like all other articles, details of the original decision as well as the substituted decision have been included; just as we would detail appeals with criminal justice matters, we wouldn’t remove any reference to the prior conviction and sentencing.

That being said, I appreciate your intention and have changed the wording in the lead to “failed to demonstrate required minimum membership at the time” rather than “failed to meet minimum membership requirements at the time.” I’ve also moved the substitution decision in to the deregistration section so they’re more likely to be read together. Tim (Talk) 01:41, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ItsPugle: I don’t believe the use of “controversial minor party” is a case of WP:BLUESKY (because it is WP:NOTBLUE). It is very unusual wording for the introduction of an AEC-registered party or of a political party in general. Of the 13 AEC-registered parties listed in {{Political parties in Australia}} (HEART hasn’t been added back since re-registering) that do not hold seats in federal parliament or a state or territory parliament, only two (Australian Citizens Party and Indigenous-Aboriginal Party of Australia) are described as “minor parties”. None are described as controversial, even though this list includes the Australian Citizens Party, The Great Australian Party, Socialist Alliance, Trumpet of Patriots, and Victorian Socialists. Even One Nation, arguably the most consistently controversial political party in the country for the last two decades, is not marked as controversial in the lead. There are good reasons why this is not done. Best practice is to introduce a controversial organisation with facts. Nobody disputes that HEART’s views are conspiratorial or unscientific. Introducing it by saying “HEART is an Australian political party registered federally and in New South Wales. The party supports alternative medicine, COVID scepticism, and opposes mandatory vaccination and water fluoridation. The party’s rhetoric has often been described as unscientific by authorities, who have stated it spreads misinformation.” is a neutral, verifiable introduction, and plainly speaks for itself. Neither “controversial” nor “minor party” are terms that have clear and unambiguous meanings. All political parties are controversial on the ordinary meaning of the word. You could justifiably place that in the lead of any of their articles. But the term “minor party” is especially unclear: sure, the ALP and Coalition are unambiguously major parties. Are the Greens a minor party? There’d probably be some debate either way. Is One Nation a minor party? Many would say yes, some would say no. What about Australia’s Voice or Centre Alliance? Ultimately it’s a subjective term and doesn’t belong in an article lead. Stating that “HEART has never elected a representative to state or federal parliament and has had a long-running dispute with the AEC, who have attempted to de-register it for insufficient membership.” is again neutral, verifiable, and speaks for itself. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This entire article is pointless and fails GNG and what little content is worth retaining should be merged into Barbara O’Neill who seems to be the driving force behind the party existing. There’s no significant coverage of them, just WP:ROUTINE coverage of a minor party who have done nothing within the elections they’ve participated in. The vast majority of sourcing in the article is primary source bureaucratic notices (more routine coverage) about the name. The actual article is 8 paragraphs of irrelevant name/merger cruft. Probably the only line that would actually matter for GNG is the line about them being anti-vax with Greg Hunt & the AMA talking about their misinformation. But that’s one line and one source, not enough to make them worthy of a page. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I am indifferent to how the description is achieved, just against blanket removal of (subjectively) obvious descriptors on the basis that it might cause upset. I’m happy with HEART is an Australian political party registered federally and in New South Wales. The party supports alternative medicine, COVID-19 scepticism, and opposes mandatory vaccination and water fluoridation. The party’s rhetoric has often been described as unscientific by authorities, who have stated the party spreads misinformation. instead (aside: nice writing). I don’t think that “minor” is an POV issue (HEART has called themselves a minor party in announcements etc), and just because other articles don’t happen to use that term doesn’t necessarily mean there is a consensus that it violates POV, but I don’t really care enough to die on that hill. Tim (Talk) 00:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed that the following statement does not require a reference as it is allegedly described in the body, however I cannot find any reference that backs up this claim:

“The party’s rhetoric has often been described as unscientific by authorities, who have stated the party spreads misinformation.”

The following statement in the body of the article is not properly supported by the cited reference:

“National peak medical organisation, the Australian Medical Association, also describes the party as spreading health misinformation and that the group’s positions ‘lack the backing of scientific evidence’.”

The reference currently cited ([5]) is regarding Misty Mountain Retreat and has no mention of the AMA. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a number of edits to this page which were backed up with evidence. Unfortunately, all my edits have been reverted without reviewing the evidence, leaving the page inaccurate and does not meet NPOV and Verifiability policies.

Here is a list of errors which should be addressed:

1. Incorrect foundation date. The party was original founded on 16 November 2016 as IMOP. This page currently has the date of their name change instead.
2. NPOV concerns – It currently focuses only on the party’s contentious positions,but doesn’t include any of the party’s general policies.
3. Barbara O’Neill is only barred in Australia – I added this is quotes but this was also removed
4. Misleading wording – The wording “After the Commission removed deceased members and duplicate listings” is misleading, as “duplicate listings” refer to duplicate membership with other parties.
5. Incorrect membership figures – The page suggests the party has ~1,600 members without explaining that the AEC membership test requires only 1,500 – 1,650 members for registration. The info box states: Membership (2024): 7,000+ (claimed), 1,618 (actual), but the 1,618 figure reflects the test, not actual membership (which is not publicly available).
6. Tom Barnett – Tom Barnett was not associated with the party at the time he did the video and did not represent the party. This is clear in the referenced articles. Therefore, this should not be included in the “History”.

Could my previous edits please be reviewed for reinstatement? ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a previous editor I would appreciate if you could review my contribution above?

Rickypro, Valjean, Totallynotarandomalt69, 5225C, ItsPugle ShadowAdvocate (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The date on the AEC notice for the IMOP registration is 26 October 2016, not 16 November. Because HEART is a merger, it does make sense to limit this to the body of the article rather than the infobox (because there are two preceding parties). (2) I agree HEART has other non-controversial positions and the article can be expanded to summarise these. (3) As this is an Australian party, O’Neill not being barred elsewhere is irrelevant. (4) Duplicate listings can actually refer to both members listed more than once on a party’s list or members on more than one party list. I don’t see why this section needs to be so detailed, it probably fails WP:SS. If anything detail needs to be removed, not added. (5) I agree, that is misleading and should be changed to whatever the latest sourced figure is. I don’t see the need to specify “claimed”, no Australian party that I know of makes its membership lists public, so they are all implicitly “claiming” a membership. If the party says it has N members on the books than that can go in the infobox with a source. (6) I agree, not only was Barnett not a member of the party, he never ran with HEART. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 11:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions on this topic. Just a couple of points to share with you, 1) the merger didn’t end up going ahead. HAP pulled out and disbanded, so HEART Party is just a direct name change from the previous IMOP. 3) I can see your point, however O’Neill is now presenting across the world, where she isn’t banned, so people may be misled into thinking she is conducting illegal conduct. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For (1) it seems unclear from the content in the article, but if that’s the case then yes, the infobox should be changed to 26 October 2016. As for (3), this article is exclusively concerned with an Australian political party, so whatever O’Neill’s arrangements are internationally are just irrelevant here. Those are matters to be discussed in her article, not HEART’s. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 16:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that O’Neill has little relevance to the article, other than being the wife of Michael O’Neill, but how would you suggest addressing this? Leaving it as it is? Removing Barbara altogether? Or drop the reference to her being barred? It seems to have been added to cast an unfavourable light on the HEART Party, which is ok if relevant, but not if thats its only purpose?

So if there’s agreement on most of the proposed edits discussed, what’s the next steps? I’m still new here and I’ve been told not to edit the article, so I’m confused about how to progress with next steps?

ShadowAdvocate (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The current mention of Barbara O’Neill is about right and should not be removed, but she should be mentioned in the history of the party. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fair. Do you think the scope of the ban should be distinguished? I’m happy to let this go if there’s not agreement on this, but it just seems logical to me not to mislead readers, and they should not have to click through to her page to learn this information. I think if a reader was to read that she’s been barred from giving health advice without clarifying that this is an Australian ban, they would wonder why she’s continuing to operate while being banned. ShadowAdvocate (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable to me to add something like “in Australia” to the mention. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]