Talk:Division of Lalor

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Australia: Melbourne / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Division of Lalor is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Untitled[edit]

The following was added by Melbuniartsstudent

Safe Seat? In Australian Politics Lalor is considered to be a safe Labor seat. This is despite the margin dropping ten points in 1996 and Gillard now sitting on eight percent. An eight percent margin is still quite safe in the Australian House of Representatives but many respected political commentators believe that if the numbers continue in the same trend, this seat could become marginal Labor and conceivably winnable for the Liberal Party in a few parliamentary terms.

Could you please provide a citation supporting these assertions. In particular, who are these "many respected political commentators"? Dlw22 09:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After further research, I've decided to remove the section altogether. Since not only is it dubious in it's analysis, it's not even factually correct. The 10% swing you refer to was in 1990, when Labor suffered enormous problems (electorally) in Victoria. 1996 saw only a tame 0.5% swing in Lalor. Dlw22 10:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might also include that parts of Lalor fall within the suburb of Altona Meadows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.246.31 (talk) 11:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

The article, without citation, states that the pronunciation is /ˈlɔːlər/. Australian English is non-rhotic so no Australian would say ˈlɔːlər, the closest would be ˈlɔːlə.

The "citation" in the article is actually a note that says, obviously without any source: "Those familiar with the suburb (not contained within the electorate itself), but not the electorate, may erroneously pronounce it [ˈlæɪloː] or [ˈlæɪlə]."

According to the citation on the Wikipedia page for Peter Lalor his name was pronounced /ˈlɔːlər/. It probably was, but somewhere in the intervening 130+ years since his death Australian speech became non-rhotic so nobody is saying ˈlɔːlər.

Also while the citation from the 2005 Macquarie Dictionary claims ˈlɔːlər (don't know, don't have it) the ccurrent edition of Macquarie online says "/ˈlɔlə/ (say 'lawluh)".

Also I question the concept that ˈlɔlə is correct and ˈlæɪloː or 'læɪlə wrong if a very significant portion of the population uses the "wrong" form. 58.7.137.83 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]