Talk:HEART Party

Lead

@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)

• 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)
  • Happy for you to take it to AfD but this is a conversation about a content disagreement. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I've made those changes now. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated :) Tim (Talk) 10:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Statement not adequately backed up

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)

Request for Review of Reverted Edits - Accuracy and NPOV Concerns

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It seems reasonable to me to add something like "in Australia" to the mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, so what would be the next steps to move torward improving this page? I've been asked not to edit the page directly, and in this talk there looks to be general agreement of my proposed edits. Could someone tell me whether I could go ahead and revert my previous edits (if they are all consistent with the discussion here), or would someone else be willing to apply my edits or write their own?

Valjean, 5225C ShadowAdvocate (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

You're free to implement the changes that have been discussed and approved here. I suggest leaving a link to this discussion in your edit summary. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 04:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)