Talk:Steve Fielding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That last edit was by me - I didn't notice I had been logged off. Adam 23:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Labor's decision to swap preferences with Family First, which caused Labor's Senator Jacinta Collins to lose her seat, became a source of acrimony within the party after the election.
Labor's preferences come into play after their last senator gets eliminated, so this sentence doesn't make sense, unless the preference deal made people choose not to vote Labor. Andjam 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Please explain how writing on someone else's walls without their permission is not vandalism. Xtra 22:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- We don't need to characterise stuff we don't like, just report it. See WP:NPOV. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question. How is it not vandalism? It is not POV to call it vandalism. Read up a dictionary and it clearly falls within the definition. Xtra 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're correct to call it vandalism, but protest is a more neutral term than attack. For example, if you look at The Age's article, the headline is "Fielding target of student protests", there is no use of the word attack. Even looking at the Herald Sun's article, we see that the headline is "MP office vandalised in VSU protest". --Brendanfox 00:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question. How is it not vandalism? It is not POV to call it vandalism. Read up a dictionary and it clearly falls within the definition. Xtra 03:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article name
I don't think I've ever heard of him being referred to as "Steve", shouldn't this be moved to Steven? 220.236.93.193 08:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Check his official page http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ he calls himself Steve. Rocksong 09:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Risstrom/Preferences
Paragraph removed:
- He received 1.9% of the vote on first preferences (significantly less than Greens' candidate David Risstrom). However, a preference deal with the ALP resulted in most ALP preferences falling to him instead of Risstrom, giving him the final Victorian Senate seat. This has led to controversy about his legitimacy as a senator, given that many ALP voters would not have realised that their preferences would go to a conservative candidate (Fielding) over a progressive candidate (Risstrom).
Original paragraph located directly beneath the removed one:
- Since he polled less than 2% of the popular vote, Fielding's election was a surprise. He gained quota under the Senate's proportional representation system by receiving preferences from other parties (see Australian electoral system). The Australian Democrats and the Australian Labor Party agreed to swap preferences with Family First in the belief that Family First could not win a seat. But Fielding benefited from the larger-than-expected surplus of Liberal preferences, and stayed in the count long enough to receive Democrat and Labor preferences, defeating the Australian Greens' lead candidate David Risstrom for the last Senate place in Victoria.
They're essentially the same thing, with the exception of some point-of-view original research/unsourced conclusions in the paragraph that has been removed. Why repeat information needlessly and throw some unrequired spin on it? michael talk 06:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- The two really need to be merged - the first is biased, and the second is inaccurate. Ambi 07:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VSU
Care to cite your comment about the majority of fees going to the union coffers?
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)