![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I note the Shooters and Fishers Party article refers to a previous name Shooters Party. The Shooters and Fishers Party was registered with AEC 21 August 2007. and the Australian Shooters Party was deregistered in 2006. [1]. The AEC refers to the S&F party as a new party not a name change or abbreviation. These two parties may have similar ideals however it is not the same party renamed. I have removed the previously known as. CamV8 ( talk) 06:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
The link for Current Site returns an insurance company page. 2602:306:CCE1:2C50:C5DB:1C4F:79EC:C6A8 ( talk) 05:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC) LK Tucker
Is it really appropriate or unbiased to have the second paragraph of the article end with "SFF sides with Labor on a majority of motions. " Other than being extremely vague, and unsourced it feels like it's pushing a Coalition agenda, trotting out the old "a vote for x minor party is a vote for y major party" canard that comes up.
This feels extremely non netural and biased and inappropriate for inclusion. 49.195.219.148 ( talk) 15:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)