Talk:Gippsland by-election, 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Gippsland by-election, 2008 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Darren McCubbin and the blow-up doll
[1][2] Noteworthy? Timeshift (talk) 06:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- If it's directly responsible for him pulling out/not getting elected etc. etc. and their is a source that says it is directly responsible...then yes. Otherwise, not really. Probably enough to summarise the article and reference it. Shot info (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno that a Glenn Milne hatchet job really needs to be reproduced in wikipedia. If it belongs anywhere it should be in an article about Darren McCubbin himself. IMHO. Bush shep (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per http://news.google.com.au/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1215915755 is it a Glenn Milne hatchet job? Sorry if I happened to link the article that was written by Milne. And Darren McCubbin issues would appear on this page anyway until he is established as noteworthy for his own wikipedia page (ie: become an MP). Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well it's still political muckracking no matter how many articles it appears in. But I'm not too fussed either way. Perhaps shot info's test is a good one: if it has a substantial impact on the campaign then include it. Bush shep (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would argue there is no way to tell if it is a vote-changing issue. If we set the standard at commentators declaring their opinion in news articles post-election, then they're already there now, pre-election, saying 'Labor's chances have been dealt a devastating blow' etc. Timeshift (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- You can tell by waiting for the third party sources - which will probably be after the election. Until then, it's largely OR to make or state various claims. Probably just best to state the obvious (ie/ the candidate is involved in difficulties...etc. etc.). FWIW that link just seems to be by an author intend on predicting the result rather than engaging in substantive investigative journalism (which alas seems all too common world wide...sighh). Shot info (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would argue there is no way to tell if it is a vote-changing issue. If we set the standard at commentators declaring their opinion in news articles post-election, then they're already there now, pre-election, saying 'Labor's chances have been dealt a devastating blow' etc. Timeshift (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well it's still political muckracking no matter how many articles it appears in. But I'm not too fussed either way. Perhaps shot info's test is a good one: if it has a substantial impact on the campaign then include it. Bush shep (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Per http://news.google.com.au/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&tab=wn&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1215915755 is it a Glenn Milne hatchet job? Sorry if I happened to link the article that was written by Milne. And Darren McCubbin issues would appear on this page anyway until he is established as noteworthy for his own wikipedia page (ie: become an MP). Timeshift (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
