Talk:Electoral district of Barossa

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: South Australia / Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Electoral district of Barossa 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 South Australia (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, or the State Library of South Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Coombe

Coombe's affiliations in the table need fixing. Timeshift (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What affiliations specifically? My assumption that the bit about him being Labor in 1901-02 is wrong is backed up by the ADB, but for the rest he's in the same boat as the others - he just needs it marked that he was Ind Lib to 1906 and LDU from 1906, just as Butler needs his time in the FPPU mentioned etc. His 1910-12 independent stint and his later Labor stint are both correct. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well the ADB ref doesn't say explicitly otherwise. But if you're right, how many times can the ECSA/Jaensch reference be wrong until we start to systemically question it? Where else can we turn? Timeshift (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Coombe was Liberal.

The alternative is that we manually document all of this by hand from Trove. I was a fan of that until I realised just how murky this period is. I still think the best approach is to use Jaensch unless we prove him wrong, even if we wind up proving him wrong quite a few times. Also, I've never had reason to dispute his results: like I've said before he's a much better statistician than he is a historian. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively, is it worth getting in touch with Jaensch and/or ECSA and raising the errors with him/them? Jaensch's Flinders University staff page has an email address.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go through and make the fixes as needed and/or contact them? After all, I was happy to rely on what I presumed to be a WP:RS :P Careful raising it with him if you do - you don't want to be such a politico nerd that you're actually on Dean Jaensch's bad side :P Timeshift (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, happy to use Jaensch's data except the bits of it that we find to be wrong as long as nobody else is complaining either. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]