Jump to content

Talk:2012 Port Adelaide state by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johanson and Lawrie

[edit]

Originally I added Gary Johanson and Sue Lawrie as "Independent Liberal" with grey colouring, as Sue Lawrie is a member of the Liberal Party and contested the seat for the Liberals at the last election, and Gary Johanson due to this confirmation that as late as last year, he was a member of the Liberal Party - and possibly still may be. Previous SA elections on wikipedia often have "independent Liberal/Labor", so I didn't see the issue. An IP editor decided this needed changing. After one revert, I realised they weren't happy so I thought i'd accomodate concerns by changing their affiliation to simply "Independent" with grey colouring, and a brief one-line description of each candidate's background, including the Liberal Party membership bits. The IP still wasn't happy, it now seems to be that they insist Sue Lawrie should have a blue colour and be "Liberal independent". Antony lists both as just independent. Opinions? Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everyone knows that Lawrie is basically the unofficial Liberal Party candidate, but it is a perfectly reasonable inference that as the Libs have stated they won't run a candidate, that Lawrie is running as an independent (although, presumably, with permission and informal backing from the local LP party machine). Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry to get off-topic, I must comment... if it were the case that Lawrie got LP backing to run as an independent, you'd have to question the official LP motive of not running a candidate, "to not split Johanson's vote". Timeshift (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johanson and Lawrie

[edit]

The original source material used as referenced by Timeshift9 stated that Sue Lawrie is an Independent Liberal, this has also been repeated numerous times by the local media. No where has it been stated that Gary Johanson is an Independent Liberal, only that he is an Independent. Even his own website describes him as "Independent for you".

I am trying to make this article as factually accurate as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.0.93 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are basing their labelling strictly off WP:RS, then both need to be labelled independent, per Antony Green's page. How do you think they'll be listed on the ballot paper...? Independent. Your changes are disputed, you require WP:CONSENSUS. Also, she is described as an independent Liberal and a Liberal independent. But that's a coloquial description, not a party affiliation. The only page on the net that has party affiliation labelled is Antony Green. That's what is being used. Timeshift (talk) 08:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are auguring for factual inaccuracy. In terms of the "office label" or "description" if Johanson wanted to be known as Independent Liberal it would be on his site. If Sue Lawrie wanted to be known as Independent it would be reported as such by media outlets. Quoting Antony Green does not automatically make your argument valid. We will know who is what officially, when the ballot is announced. Until then you need to base you assertions on fact and not personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.0.93 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read and enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_to_%22no_consensus%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.166.0.93 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate websites are primary sources, therefore they are excluded from WP:RS, unlike Antony Green/ABC. I've compromised, you're insisting on a change from the status quo. How is it factual innaccuracy? Are you saying Antony Green is not factually accurate? He is categorically classed as accurate. Please gain consensus. Timeshift (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about consensus, did you read the link I posted? It's about factual accuracy. Has Antony Green talked to the candidates to find out where they stand? Are you saying news outlets besides Antony Green are wrong or inaccurate? 101.166.0.93 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, "Don't revert due solely to no consensus". Key word is solely. I've given three reasons why. I'm not doing it for the point of doing it. I would advise against wikilawyering when you're not familiar with the policies. Antony Green is categorically a WP:RS, we do not need to question "if he has talked to the candidates". What i'm saying is that Antony Green is the only source to list affiliations. No other page on the net lists affiliations. The ABC saying she is a Liberal independent is a description of the candidate, not a listing of their affiliation. And are you saying that either will be listed as anything on the ballot paper as anything but "independent"? You cannot insist on your disputed change, it will not stand. Timeshift (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even you admit that the ABC has stated that Sue Lawrie is Independent Liberal. What more of a source do you want? You have one website saying she is Independent and yet there are numerous others stating she is Independent Liberal. Saaaaywhatnow (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you struggle to understand? I've explained this many times. I'll try to do so again. There is a difference between a description of what they are, which is independent liberal or former liberal. Then we have their affiliations which are a much more technical non-journalistic area. They are both officially affiliated as "independent" and nothing more. It is the only WP:RS candidate list on the internet for this by-election in regards to official affiliations. And until we hear otherwise from the SA electoral commission, they'll be listed as independent on the ballot paper. But all of this aside, I am not reverting simply due to no consensus. I also compromised earlier by modifying the table to describe their connection to the party. Amongst all of this, your changes are against the status quo, it is the most unbiased version it can be until further discussion here is had. Precisely what is wrong or misleading, considering the only WP:RS for it on the net confirms both are just "independent", and then have their precise connection on the side? And changing the colour to blue rather than grey indicates preselection for that party, which she has most certainly not been for this by-election. I've made another compromise consensus attempt with you just now, a rephrasing of the two independent's side comments. As it now stands, I honestly cannot imagine anyone being able to reasonably argue your claims of "bias", not that I think it was biased to begin with. It gives the reader everything they need. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with wikipedia policies and cease edit warring for your original change-away-from-the-status-quo edit with Sue Lawrie. She will not appear on the ballot as Independent Liberal, just, independent. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you use for Sue Lawrie, number 7 states clearly and I quote "Sue Lawrie, will run as a Liberal independent at a by-election next February." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-21/liberal-independent-sue-lawrie-port-adelaide/3741414 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saaaaywhatnow (talk • contribs) 03:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference indicates she will run as a Liberal independent, but you believe this is the official affiliation. If we are to go by what is on the ballot paper, then both are just independent. If you look at previous by-elections, eg: Mayo by-election, 2008, Mary Brewerton was doing as a Labor Party member what Lawrie currently is as a Liberal Party member. Independents are independent regardless of current party affiliation. The electoral commission backs me, the only WP:RS port adelaide by-election official candidate affiliation reference by Antony Green/ABC backs me, previous wiki articles back me, and WP:CONSENSUS backs me. The fact I have tried to compromise with you by adding an extra section to the infobox, I would have thought should have resolved all issues. It is all stated there in black and white. Please stop this silly pointless war and achieve more through constructive talkpage dialogue. Timeshift (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just an update that after all of the above, the editor has ceased contributing to any form of discussion, let alone good faith. Antony Green here remains the only WP:RS that lists official candidate affiliations as opposed to a coloquial description of the candidate, as primary sources are not WP:RS. I'm hoping it won't take ECSA's update-to-come before the disruption ceases. Timeshift (talk) 05:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This one is pretty simple. We list her as what she will appear on the ballot paper. This makes SA a somewhat odd case, since she could hypothetically appear as "Independent Liberal" in such a case. Given the only RS currently listing candidates is Antony Green, the best way is to go with his designation of "Independent" for the time being. By all means talk about Lawrie's Liberal affiliations and any endorsements from the Libs she may or may not have received. Either way there is no justification for using the blue Liberal colour for Lawrie here - she will certainly not appear on the ballot as the endorsed candidate of the Liberal Party of Australia, and that's the sole criterion on which someone gets the colour. Frickeg (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source, this, though not an affiliation list, refers to Lawrie as an independent only. Update: It would appear that reams of WP:RS media outlets have all used the one copy more or less to announce the writs, and each one refers to her as an independent only. Not to gloat or anything :) Timeshift (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the evidence, it's clear both should say "independent" until a ballot-paper source from ECSA confirms otherwise (which I don't doubt it may, but we can't make an assumption that it will.) Orderinchaos 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in addition to the only candidate affiliation list being Antony Green which states Sue Lawrie is simply an independent; and with media articles referring to her as an independent and one as a Liberal independent (keeping in mind that the media do not list a candidate's affiliation, but instead give a coloquial description of a candidate), I came across this which refers to her as a "conservative independent". She is simply "independent" until the ECSA ballot paper says otherwise, and would most certainly never get a blue colour over a grey colour, as official party preselection for a seat is the sole criteria for that. All other Australian state and federal by-election articles and individual seat result articles adhere to this. Of those who have participated in this discussion, there is no wish to change to a blue colour and add Liberal, so there is no consensus for that change, as such the status quo must be maintained until a talkpage WP:CONSENSUS says otherwise. I hope that this article will suffer no more disruption. Timeshift (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briton's affiliation

[edit]

I note that at the moment Bob Briton is listed as Independent, although in the notes it states that he is a member of the (unregistered) Communist Party. Normally I'd be happy with that, but since we're talking about reliable sources and all, the source we're using to justify Lawrie as an Independent also lists Briton as "Communist Party". I think the best tonic for disagreement here is to be as consistent as possible, at least until the "official" ECSA list is published. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

He is that, but the SA Electoral Commission has priority over Antony Green and its current party register shows that the party is not currently registered, so it is literally impossible for Briton to appear on the ballot under that party name. I would, however, be happy with listing him as "Independent Communist", since there's a very high chance that he will have something to that effect as his affiliation on the ballot paper, and this seems to be a way to reconcile the two sources. Frickeg (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, I actually know the guy and he's definitely from The Communists (the new name of the former Communist Alliance, not to be confused with the Communist Party of Australia which is a co-existing but separate organisation.) Orderinchaos 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, i've updated the article. Timeshift (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a bit of clarification on this? Briton's candidate page is on the Communist Party of Australia website, and his stobie pole posters i've seen around that area also refer to the CPA. Is he running for the CPA or The Communists, formerly Communist Alliance, and is there any available cite for this? Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both: they're affiliated. The Communists are like the Socialist Alliance, a bunch of separate parties banding together so that they can be registered. So Briton would be a member of both. If the posters and things are talking about the CPA, then the CPA it should be (with perhaps a link to The Communists as the federally registered party). Frickeg (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily it's now irrelevant. Thanks ECSA! Timeshift (talk) 05:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LDP's Stephen Humble (and DLP's Elizabeth Pistor)

[edit]

Each of the candidates in both by-elections have something sourceable for their description, be it previous candidacies or occupations. This candidate appears to be the only one without anything on here and on Antony's website. The only thing I can find is his facebook profile but I loathe using it as a reference for obvious reasons. But in this circumstance where it's something or nothing, i'm wondering if I should use facebook as a reference as a once off in the spirit of WP:IAR. Before I do potentially use it... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not wrong about the lack of sources; I found a bunch of interviews in which he basically outlines the LDP's philosophy, but says nothing whatsoever about himself. I'd be inclined to wait, though, in the hope that something will turn up. If the LDP is poised to attract as much of the "confused vote" as the polls are saying, I'm sure will be finding out more about him soon enough. Frickeg (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Less than a week until polling day closes - per above, used Facebook profile as ref to add "Electronic Engineering at TAFE, communications engineer for a large corporation". Timeshift (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot about Pistor as well, added. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable election template

[edit]

I've not been able to find an easy way to get the independent ballot names in the result infobox without losing the grey colour for independent. Until such time as an appropriate template can be found, i've added the result box and changed the candidate list independent colour to white to match. Timeshift (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Port Adelaide state by-election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Port_Adelaide_state_by-election&oldid=1196620958"