Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics

First cab off the rank

And, to get us going, Patricia Petersen (AfD), although this one's escaped attention as an orphan for years. Frickeg (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've commented in the AfD I think that she is sufficiently written about in spite of her unsuccessful campaigns. Just seems to be a perennially visible figure in the media - Peripitus (Talk) 13:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Penny Wright

Started here: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Penny Wright Donama (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say, that is a perfect example of what we should be doing. I suggest we maintain a list on the main politics page, which I'll start now. Frickeg (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lang Labor in New South Wales

Hi User:Frickeg and I have recently been discussing the classification of Labor members of the NSW Parliament during the first appearance of Lang Labor 1931-36. I have cut and pasted our correspondence but we would like your input.

Hi - saw your change to Electoral district of Phillip. I've been uncertain about how to handle Lang Labor at state level for a while (apart from the very limited 1940s version, which is easy). As I understand it, all NSW Labor MPs were "Lang Labor" between 1931 and 1936. I don't know how we should show this, seeing as NSW Labor was the main Labor party in NSW and "Federal Labor" (which won no seats) was the breakaway. As such I've been leaving them as Labor. Thoughts? Frickeg (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have wondered that too and made the change to Phillip as a little experiment - I have left the others alone. It is a difficult one because as you have said all the state members were Langists and the federal candidates were lucky to get 10%. It is also difficult for the different manifestations of Lang labor, ALP (NSW) (this does not seem to have a separate colour on wikipedia and I used the Lang Labor colour), ALP (non-communist) and finally "Lang Labor" in federal parliament. However, the ALP (NSW) party was not formed by a move from Lang but by the expulsion of the NSW executive from the Australian Labor Party by the Federal executive and it came to an end when Lang's NSW executive was again recognized by the Federal executive (Brian McKinlay , A Documentary History of the Australian Labor Movement 1850-1975 p119-20) Hawker's History of the NSW Parliament 1856-1965 isn't very good but lists the members from 1931-1936 as Lang Labor. On the other hand Antony Green's summary of the appropriate elections has them as ALP or Labor Party e.g. http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/1935/Totals.htm. I haven't got immediate access to contemporary Hansard or the Electoral Commission documents but I suspect that they would not be helpful as parties were not given official recognition on ballot papers etc. until much later. Finally I have looked at the SMH report of the election results in 1932 and 1935 when they are called variously Lang Labour or State Labour. I suspect the Labor Daily may have used different titles but its readership was not great and I do not have easy access to it. http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/16899980/1156286?zoomLevel=3 http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/17157285/1116568?zoomLevel=3

I am inclined to call the members ALP (NSW) but perhaps this should be put up for discussion and I won't change any more till then.

Many thanks

I don't have a strong opinion, but at a state level, I'd be inclined to go with either "State Labour" or just "ALP" and mark the dissidents as "Federal Labour" (which is what they were known as). From memory (having read quite a few articles from the time) "State Labour" seemed to be in more common use with regard to the majority state-level MPs of the time - "Lang Labour" seemed to be more in use among the federal MPs (where they were very much in the minority). Again, no particularly strong opinions though. Rebecca (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

New category for ALP

I've created and populated Category:Australian Labor Party. Those more familiar with Australian politics might be able to add more pages and sort the contents into subcategories. Fences&Windows 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

LNP federally

Seems best to get this out of the way now rather than when the election comes up. How are we going to handle the LNP? It's not as simple as the CLP in the NT, because both the AEC and the Parliament website recognise the CLP as a completely separate party (even if it's not really in practice). The LNP, however, is another matter. The Parliament website doesn't recognise it at all, while the AEC recognises it as the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party. Naturally in election boxes and things they'll come up as LNP, but how about in the final result, in member lists, etc.? It wouldn't be accurate, really, to have the LNP has an entirely different party on the results page (that is, Australian federal election, 2010), because it's defined by the AEC as part of the Liberal Party. On the other hand, I don't think listing Bruce Scott or Paul Neville as Liberals is going to work - the Parliament site still recognises them as Nationals. So ... what to do? Frickeg (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In my view it is something of a separate party, so should be treated as we do the CLP. I might fire off an enquiry to the AEC as well to find out how they intend to report the results. Orderinchaos 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So should we be listing Scott, Neville and Truss as LNP on pages like Division of Wide Bay, Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2007-2010, etc.? The parliament site still lists them as Nationals, but if any new LNP MPs are elected we'll need to know where to put them. Frickeg (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question - casting vote?

As far as federal/state parliaments go, does someone know the rundown on which speakers/presidents have a casting vote and which don't? Timeshift (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably longer than you were looking for - I had some trouble sleeping tonight (too damn cold!) so researched the question for you.

Extended content

A deliberative vote is a vote used to express the opinion of the individual casting the vote on the matter being discussed. A casting vote is where the person presiding over the relevant meeting has a vote to determine the issue only when the deliberative votes are tied. [1] The normal case in Australia appears to be "casting but not deliberative". Exceptions are the Senate, the Victorian LC and both Territory LAs. House of Reps casting but not deliberative s40 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act: "Questions arising in the House of Representatives shall be determined by a majority of votes other than that of the Speaker. The Speaker shall not vote unless the numbers are equal, and then he shall have a casting vote." Senate deliberative vote but not casting [...] "In the Australian Senate the President has a deliberative vote but not a casting vote. In the Senate if voting is tied the question is declared in the negative." [2] s23 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act: "Questions arising in the Senate shall be determined by a majority of votes, and each senator shall have one vote. The President shall in all cases be entitled to a vote; and when the votes are equal the question shall pass in the negative." NSW both houses, casting but not deliberative vote LA - s32(2) Constitution Act 1902 "All questions which may arise in the Legislative Assembly shall be decided by the majority of the votes of the Members present other than the Member presiding, and when the votes are equal the Member presiding shall have a casting vote." (s184 LA Standing Orders adds "and any reasons given may be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.") LC - s22I Constitution Act 1902 "All questions arising in the Legislative Council shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the Members present other than the President or other Member presiding and when the votes are equal the President or other Member presiding shall have a casting vote." (see also s116 LC Standing Orders) VIC LA: casting but not deliberative, LC: deliberative but not casting LA - s40(2A) Constitution Act 1975 "Subject to section 18 all questions arising in the Assembly shall be decided by a majority of members present other than the Speaker and when the votes are equal the Speaker shall have a casting vote." See also [3] LC - s32(2A) Constitution Act 1975 "The President has a deliberative vote but not a casting vote." QLD casting but not deliberative vote. Strangely, not in constitution at all. s107(2) Standing Orders: "Every member present in the House when the question is put with the bars closed must vote except the Speaker, who shall have a casting vote if the votes are equal." WA both houses, casting vote but not deliberative "In the West Australian Parliament the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly does not have a deliberative vote but does have a casting vote. In the Legislative Council similarly the President does not have a deliberative vote but only a casting vote" [...] [4] LA - s24 Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 "all questions which shall arise in the Legislative Assembly shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present, other than the Speaker, and when the votes are equal the Speaker shall have the casting vote" LC - s14 Constitution Acts Amendment Act 1899 is identical to s24 substituting "President" for "Speaker" SA both houses, casting vote but not deliberative: HoA - "When the votes are equal, the Speaker gives a casting vote. Any reasons that the Speaker gives for the casting vote are entered in the Votes and Proceedings." s180, Standing Orders, HoA. See also s37(2) and (3) of Constitution Act 1934. LC - "In the case of an equality of votes, the President shall give a Casting Voice, and any reason given by the President shall be entered in the Minutes." s231, Standing Orders, LC. See also s26(2) of Constitution Act 1934. TAS both houses, casting vote but not deliberative HoA - s25(2) and (3) Constitution Act 1934 - "All questions shall be decided by the majority of the votes of the Members present, exclusive of the Speaker [...] In the event of an equality of votes the Speaker or such person as aforesaid shall have a casting vote." LC - s20(2) and (3) Constitution Act 1934 - identical to s25 substitution "President" for "Speaker". NT deliberative and casting vote. [5] LA - s27(2) Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978 (Cth) "Subject to subsection 21(3), the Speaker or other member presiding at any meeting of the Legislative Assembly shall in all cases be entitled to vote and shall also, where there is an equality of votes on any question, have a casting vote." (21(3) is simply a conflict of interest provision.) ACT deliberative vote but not casting LA - s18(3) Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) "The member presiding at a meeting has a deliberative vote only, and, if the votes on a question are equal, the question shall pass in the negative."

Orderinchaos 20:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detail! Hope you get better soon! Timeshift (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Keating

I seem to have attracted the attention of Skyring, with a discussion occurring at Talk:Paul Keating. It is over these measley words, 100% true, balanced, NPOV, not out of place. "Keating became PM in 1991, won 1993 and the fifth for his party, however lost in 1996" basically. The objection Skyring has is that Keating assisting in a fifth consecutive win for his party is somehow not relevant to his WP:BLP, which IMHO is nonsense. I would appreciate some comments for what I really feel is trivial and energy being wasted that could be much better spent. Timeshift (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here. My opinion is that Bob Hawke's election wins are irrelevant in the lead of Paul Keating's biographical article. --Pete (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But the fact Keating successfully pulled off a fifth consecutive win for the party completely and utterly intertwines him. Leading a party to it's fifth consecutive win is by no means an easy task - but it's all a part of Keating's bio. You seem to be too rigid in what you think should be excluded from a BLP. Timeshift (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think giving Keating credit for Hawke's wins is icing the cake a little richly. I realise that if one sees life in terms of a political party, a football team, a religion, then the temptation is to make one's preferred team, one's preferred godlings come out a little better than they deserve. List as many successes as possible, don't mention the failures, always tilt the scales a little. To be frank, Timeshift, what aroused my interest was that, twenty-seven years after Hawke won his first election, and seventeen after Hewson lost, you were making edits to Keating's article. What new encyclopaedic information could one possibly add to something as extinct as Keating's parliamentary career? Adding useful info or polishing up the picture? --Pete (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a guideline somewhere that articles always remain a work in progress. Evan FAs aren't 100 percent perfect. I thought it was relevant to add to the unexpected 1993 win that he got Labor an unheralded fifth term. It's certainly noteable for breaking new territory, and only adds like three extra words to the lead. On the Keating page, we already have one user at this early hour who says that the edits are appropriate. If you feel your version is better, then argue it (at the Keating page, no two discussion stuff). But I have better things to do than spend energy on such a trivial minority objection. Timeshift (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeshift's edits in this case are perfectly justifiable - a fifth consecutive election win for a party is entirely unusual, and I don't think the wording "giv[es] Keating credit for Hawke's wins" - I'd support the same wording in Gorton's or Iemma's articles. My only whinge is a misuse of "it's" as a possessive. Orderinchaos 20:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Orderinchaos; the material is clearly relevant. I'm also flabbergasted at the comment that what "aroused [Pete's] interest" is the fact that Timeshift edited Keating's article seventeen years after Hewson's loss. I shudder to think what he'd make of my edit history, then. Frickeg (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of mine are written about people who died before my father was born. Orderinchaos 01:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Some Wikipedia editors do not love wisdom and truth so much as they love a particular cause, be it a football team, a faith, Collingwood or a party. A week or so ago, and our article on Kevin Rudd had barely a word of mild criticism, at a time when the media were gleefully listing his faults, the polls were on a one-way trek to Tasmania, the ALP knew he was unelectable and Tony Abbott was rallying the troops to glory. A few hours later, he was gone, and if a seeker after knowledge had turned to Wikipedia for the answer, or even an explanation of what every journo was splashing across the front pages and prime time telly, they would come up empty. In Wikipedia's eyes, Rudd was the goods. If Wikipedia shades the truth by adding Bob Hawke's election victories to Keating's lucky tally of one, or actively conceals the truth in the case of the declining Rudd, then we are not doing the lovers of truth and wisdom who come here seeking enlightenment any service at all. We have editors who trawl over old ground, relentlessly turning the soil to their favour. Keating's been out of Parliament for fourteen years, it is no sudden revelation who won the 1993 election, yet Timeshift here wants to polish up the Keating pedestal and add a bit more gloss. And when I gently point this out, do I get praised for my perception? Like hell, I get a childish or thoughtless attack on my sanity! --Pete (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete, they're agreeing with me, it's a trivial issue, just... move... on... seriously. Timeshift (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a pissing contest, brother. If you cannot see the point I'm making, then just let it go. It's not about who has the numbers in Wikipedia. It's a matter of playing fair to our readers. There would have been any number of people turning to the Kevin Rudd article for answers last week, and we had less than what the papers have been saying for months. What we had was factual and sourced, sure enough, all done by the wikirules. But it was a load of steaming tripe when it came to presenting the true picture. That's one very visible example of the results of polishing up partisan heroes, whether they be politicians, movie stars or ocean liners. We should present the unvarnished facts. --Pete (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unvarnished facts - like the fact that Keating led the ALP to its fifth consecutive victory. I see the point you're making, but I honestly don't think that amounts to "polishing up" anything. Frickeg (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Pete, it's a matter of pragmatism. A handful agree with me, none agree with you, in my opinion your point is invalid, trivial, and a waste of my energy, therefore the easiest thing to do is to say i'm done with this debate :) Timeshift (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Pete, the lead can be easily misread as inferring he won five elections. Actually, the grammar is pretty poor on that sentence in other ways; "After becoming prime minister in 1991, he led Labor to its fifth consecutive victory in the 1993 federal election, which many had considered unwinnable for Labor, mainly due to the effects that the early 1990s recession had on Australia." A strict interpretation is that he won the election BECAUSE of the recession, not DESPITE it. --Surturz (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I can't see how anyone could possibly read that as Keating winning five elections himself (I mean, between succeeding in 1991 and the 1993 election there were five elections? Honestly), I do agree about the recession wording, which makes it sound as if the recession was Keating's big election-winning issue. Frickeg (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, i've begun reading Unfinished Business, and even at this early stage i'm left thinking the current Keating article on wikipedia is very much from a Liberal POV. Do others agree much has been slanted and/or left out? Timeshift (talk) 10:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What are your specific concerns? Seems fairly okay to me. --Surturz (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing specific, all 1983-96. But one example, the absolutely astounding pool of capital we have floating around now because of everyone's compulsory super, and just how much of a massive impact that's had on Australia's wealth. But don't address that point, the entire article needs working over. It also exposes how Hewson not Howard deserves the credit for the Campbell Committee, and funnily enough the Treasurer section of the Howard article doesn't even mention Hewson. Love the revisionism by certain elements on here. Timeshift (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal division coord missing tags

A bot has been tagging the federal electoral divisions with "coord missing". I have suitable coordinates for all 150 divisions at User:Barrylb/Electorate coordinates and maps at User:Barrylb/Federal 2010 maps. However, the coordinates and maps are for the 2010 boundaries. When should the articles switch to the redistributed boundaries? Whenever we do update the articles, I'd like some help doing so :) -- Barrylb (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to help you with this. I am very interested in both politics and geo so this would be very interesting task to me. Love your maps by the way. --Canley (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Once the election is called seems like the right time to update the articles. Barrylb (talk) 08:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I dislike wikipedia using coords for things like electoral seats which are always changing. Timeshift (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree - I'm not sure about the usefulness of coords for things that are not really geographic entities. After all, they'll only be accurate for the present, and there'll be no way to say that what the Division of Werriwa is now is not much like what it was when it was created. Additionally, how does one give coordinates for a monster like the Division of Durack? Frickeg (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Very much of the same opinion, as electorates are transient rather than fixed entities. Division of Moore, which has outright moved several times in its lifespan, is a brilliant example of the incorrect assumptions that lurk behind the notion that a central coordinate for each is in fact useful. Orderinchaos 23:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Future elections

A CFD here has renamed Category:Future elections in Australia as Category:Scheduled elections in Australia. I personally think the renaming is ridiculous, since many of these elections are not "scheduled" at all - they could be at any time in the next few years. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on it, though, and on the best method of moving it back. Frickeg (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct use of language is important in Wikipedia. My understanding of the meaning of scheduled is that the date has been set. That's very different from future. The move was just plain wrong. Not familiar enough with this part of the system to know how to fix the mess. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added a deletion review entry. Make comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 8 -- Barrylb (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How do others handle a random user who wants a cite for everything?

Steven Griffiths... it had five sentences and one cite. Just very basic stuff like what seat, how long, he's deputy lib leader, nothing at all controversial. Someone has come along and tried to slap a refimprove tag despite no controversies, no cite needed tags, and five lines with a cite. They want a cite for every sentence. This is going overboard, AFAIK no MP has a cite for every line, especially of an article only 5 sentences long. Suggestions? Timeshift (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's rather an odd one, isn't it? (I mean, it's clearly hugely controversial to claim that anyone is a member of the Liberal Party!) I've added three citations (rather less than the user was suggesting) at grammatically sensible places, which hopefully will satisfy everyone. They may make things easier when it comes to expanding the article as well. Frickeg (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not adding cites that's the issue, I could have done that. It's the fact someone comes along and does something so silly, and then expects others to do the work that they think need doing (think back to the great uncited BLP article purge)... Timeshift (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know; there really is a terrible arrogance when people throw WP:BLP at you and then refuse to actually do any work towards improving the issue. Sometimes it's just easier to do what they want, though ... I mean, after all, improving the encyclopaedia is the ultimate goal. Frickeg (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But this (no offence against you) is not improving the encyclopedia, this is giving in to some idiot's unfounded demands. I think it's good when an article is improved upon, but that is not what i'd call an improvement. But I get what you're saying. I just don't like giving in to such silly demands from anons. Timeshift (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I personally think there are times when "bite me" is quite the appropriate response. I believe that this is one of those times. :P Rebecca (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Then i'd be accused of unnecessary bad faith etc. The mini edit wars aren't particularly fun or productive either. There isn't anything that can be done to stop silly edits such as those is there? I re-iterate my last post above... rock and hard place really. Timeshift (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Since they're chucking random acronyms at you and demanding you do the heavy lifting, just throw WP:SOFIXIT right back at them. Frickeg (talk) 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But how does that stop them re-adding the cite needed tags when I remove them...? Timeshift (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't. It just makes you feel a bit better. I really don't think there's a way to deal with this kind of thing, other than attempting to initiate a policy or guideline against slapping {{fact}} and other tags onto articles without at least attempting to fix the issue oneself. Frickeg (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

A polite, sage like comment on a user's Talk page will sometimes help, although success is less likely with an IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is that they are actually following a guideline. In the past i've found it not to be very productive and head-wall-banging to convince these contributors otherwise. The far easier option is to cave in to their demands and ref each sentence... but I don't do blackmail. Timeshift (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it's better than nominating the article for speedy deletion on the grounds that its an unreferenced BLP though ;) (whatever happened to that particular crusade?). Nick-D (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a weird form of malicious compliance that allows people to be random bullies and actually be protected by process. I did hear someone was doing their research PhD on this very subject regarding Wikipedia, and sent them some links which I thought might help, but haven't heard anything for a while. Orderinchaos 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oldest federal MP?

I was reading Wilson Tuckey and Division of O'Connor, and the bit about being the oldest House MP make me wonder who in the Senate is older... or was it just an oversight to say House of Reps than all of Aus Parliament? Timeshift (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This source says he is "Australia's oldest Federal MP". Surely no Senator comes close... (Boswell is 69, Heffernan 67). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, i've altered both pages. Timeshift (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... and random trivia: the oldest Senator is actually Judith Troeth, of all people, who will be 70 in August (about five months ahead of Boswell). Frickeg (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And there are 25 sitting US Senators (25% of the chamber) older than Troeth.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Michael Considine

I was curious as to why there was a ? between his birth month and birth year... looked at the article's ADB reference, it states Considine was "probably" born on specified date. I've removed the question mark between his birth date and birth year. Surely there is a standard format on wikipedia for such situations? A question mark is way too ambigious, it gave me the impression it was the contributor who was unsure, not the source/history in general. As an aside, just incase anyone doesn't know much about Considine... "conservative criticism of him reached a peak when he announced that he was acting consul for the new Bolshevik government of Russia. In July 1919 in Melbourne City Court he received three weeks imprisonment and was fined £100 for saying publicly, 'bugger the King, he is a bloody German bastard'. Next month he was suspended from the House for four weeks for refusing to withdraw an assertion that the Australian government was supporting the forces of Kolchak in Russia." Colourful lad. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The question mark was there because the ADB specifically said the date was not certain, the Parliamentary Handbook wasn't sure either, and nor was Psephos. This seemed to me to indicate doubt as to his exact birth date. However, I agree that a question mark is perhaps not the best way to do this. The Manual of Style gives no example for this particular case (where the exact date, but not the year, is uncertain), but uses c. when the year is uncertain (c. 1885). Perhaps this would be more appropriate (i.e. c. 26 January 1885 – 2 November 1959)? Frickeg (talk) 02:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Timeshift (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Family histories

An anon editor has adjusted the birth dates and places for Daniel Curtin; since I'm a regular lurker at Poll Bludger, it seems obvious that this person is (or claims to be) a relative of said MP. This is the latest in a long line of "family" additions that I've had to revert. But when I ask them for a source, the question arises: is there a way to source family history? And what is the best way to deal with relatives of politicians who (in good faith) just want to add some more specific information? Frickeg (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well we do want articles to be correct and sourced. So we have a problem if it is sourced and wrong. In this case a footnote may be in order. The same for if there are contradictory sources. In principle the information is verifiable at the births deaths and marriages registry, but in practice these records may only be made available to the public after 100 years or so. In many cases the birth date is disclosed for the MP on a place like the web site of the parliament, but this may not cover those earlier elected A relevant Who's Who in Australia, will likely list their birthdate and parents. Relatives updating details on entries are also much more likely to know what newspapers or books the person's details appear in and would be a good source for identifying these. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Election infobox

New South Wales state election, 2007

24 March 2007 (2007-03-24)
All 93 seats to the Legislative Assembly
First party Second party   Leader Morris Iemma Peter Debnam Party Labor Liberal/National coalition Leader since 27 July 2005 1 September 2005 Leader's seat Lakemba Vaucluse Last election 55 32 Seats won 52 35 Seat change 3 3 Popular vote 1,535,872 1,457,296 Percentage 38.98% 36.99% Swing 3.70% 2.21%
Colours denote the winning party, as shown in the main table of results.
Premier before election Morris Iemma Labor Subsequent Premier Morris Iemma Labor

Can I have some comments regarding using this style of election infobox in New South Wales past and future elections, it will add practical character to the articles and a fixed place for electoral maps for researchers. It also includes past and next and MP lists, as well as further information regarding the leaders of the two main parties as opposed to the current style of infobox currently used at New South Wales state election, 2007, which is very dull and everything there fits into the infobox displayed here. Романов (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's see. I have to say, I'm supportive of a change - I find the current NSW ones very limited, and these are the best. However, a few issues: a) I think we need a way of including two-party-preferred rather than (or as well as) primary vote, considering its vital importance; and b) I'm not sure I support having the maps in the infobox, which seems to bloat it a bit. I'm open to convincing on this last one, though. Frickeg (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I second Frickeg's concerns - I like the idea, and I think it's a helpful change, but I think having the maps in the infobox bloats it unnecessarily. Rebecca (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the infobox for current and immediate past elections, but would have issues with extending it to historical elections (I can elaborate if anyone's interested). Also agree with Frickeg's points above. Orderinchaos 10:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Lee Rhianon, major re-draft

I have re-drafted Lee Rhiannon's page in my user area here. There are citations missing which I am chasing, but I would appreciate any feedback, especially on POV etc. I've tried to keep things neutral but I should disclose that I am a supporter, so that can be hard. Best solution is to bounce it off concerned editors here. Feel free to edit it directly in my user space. Thanks. Sambauers (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)