Talk:Larissa Waters

Recent edits
It seems Shiftchange wants to promote OR/SYN by saying that she won because Labor failed on climate change... "Her chances of winning a seat in the 2010 Australian Federal Election improved when Prime Minister Julia Gillard delayed action on climate change"... This is plainly making the decision for readers rather than letting them make their own conclusions, yet Shiftchange is insisting on keeping it in. Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * May I humbly suggest you lifted out that information in such a way that it invited a revert, Timeshift. Possibly would have been worth raising it on the talk page first. Nevertheless, agree with you, Timeshift, that the way it was stated was OR/SYN but it does make sense to include something like "commentators suggested her win was influenced by such and such.[ref]" which would not be not OR or SYN. Would someone be able to have a go at that? Donama (talk) 06:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a range of reasons why a candidate is elected, to say it was such and such that influenced her win is OR/SYN, especially for an invididual state Senator's page. Timeshift (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No it's not. Influencing a win is one thing. Directly causing it is another. No one is claiming the latter. Donama (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not added anything that was not a summary from the articles which I sourced. From WP:OR - "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." I did not say "she won because". I said her chances improved because of "such and such". I have heard ABC tv news reports which made similar claims. It is up to journalist and reporters to draw conclusion and make claims and for us to include significant factors in this article. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Donama, but Shiftchange's text should be revised to make it explicit that these were factors put forward by analysts. For example, "Media analysis following the election attributed the Green's strong result in Queensland to..." followed by multiple cites (because "Media analysis" implies a consensus amongst sources). My reading and recollection is that the factors cited in shiftchange's edit were the right ones, it just needs re-framing. I don't think the fact that it is an individual Senator's page is relevant: it remains an accurate account of how she got elected. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's contentious and blatantly promotional stuff like this that lead to people thinking Wikipedia is a joke and/or hopelessly biased. There's absolutely no evidence beyond two opinion pieces (which fail to meet WP:RS) - aside from the fact both articles were written before the election, did they go out and survey people? Is there actually any method at all to those statements? The Greens themselves claim that climate change policy was the cause in order to try and get their version of it through the Parliament with some supposed "mandate", but it's just as likely to have been a generic protest vote against Labor from left-wing voters on any number of issues. And to have it in an individual Senator's article is to suggest in a rather OR fashion that that Senator had some influence on the result, whereas it's more a case of, anyone lucky enough to run as no.1 on a Green ticket in any state got elected this time. Orderinchaos 19:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * "it's just as likely to have been a generic protest vote against Labor from left-wing voters on any number of issues. And to have it in an individual Senator's article is to suggest in a rather OR fashion that that Senator had some influence on the result, whereas it's more a case of, anyone lucky enough to run as no.1 on a Green ticket in any state got elected this time." - as someone who voted Green at the last two federal elections, I couldn't have said this better myself. Timeshift (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All I was doing was expanding a very short article about a significant election win. I found two articles online, which aren't listed as opinion pieces, to explain some differences between the most recent election and the 2007 one. I think it is perfect legitimate to provide suggested causes in a politicians article when they are sourced. I wasn't aware of any guidelines or policy that indicate political opinion must be framed with "Media analysts believe such and such". My understanding is that major newspapers and major news websites are considered reliable. Maybe Waters herself made supporting statements when discussing her optimism. Maybe the authors of the articles did examine polls (surveys) but aren't those questions for the authors of the references, not me? No wonder I stay away from biographical articles and their little storms in a teacup. Timeshift's claim of original research is false and they are obliged to return the sourced material that provides an explanation of her winning ticket. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Lovely to see everybody being so reasonable here. Not. Shiftchange, you are overstating the case for your insertions, for a couple of reasons. First, the articles you cited were both published prior to the election. That is not a strong basis from which to argue an analysis of an election result. I appreciate your text was in the future tense (it spoke explicitly about what might happen), but that also makes it less encyclopedic. In this, Timeshift and Orderin Chaos are absolutely correct. Second, newspapers are generally reliable sources, but you need to be realistic about drawing on journalist's analyses, published in the heat of campaigns. This material is, just generally, and without reflecting on either the journalist or the outlet, not the kind of analysis that is really going to stand the test of time as objective fact. It is far preferable in such cases to make clear in the WP article text the context of hte reportage and to give it the voice of the source (by which I mean, writing things like "In the lead up to the election, several sources considered it likely that...") Now that the election is over, however, I don't think that material should be used. It is now appropriate to be using post-election stories from reliable sources to summarise the result in Queensland. To mee the objections of Timeshift and others (with which I only partly agree) those stories should: To both other commentators: "And to have it in an individual Senator's article is to suggest in a rather OR fashion that that Senator had some influence on the result, whereas it's more a case of, anyone lucky enough to run as no.1 on a Green ticket in any state got elected this time". Bollocks, to put it mildly. Having it in the individual Senator's article is important in order to demonstrate how they got elected. It does not (and should not be written to) imply that she personally caused or achieved that result. But she is the beneficiary of it and it should be explained to our readers. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Be from reliable sources
 * Be news and not blogs or opinion pieces (which I agree describes your previous 2 sources)
 * Speak explicitly about the Queensland result (not just about national vote)
 * Not rely on Waters or Greens' spokespersons as the source of the analysis (which would for example limit the uses to which this story could be put).
 * A debatable conclusion, that it was 'only' because of Waters being first on the ballot that she was elected. But regardless. DanEdmonds (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Language used regarding Peter Dutton
Larissa Waters described Peter Dutton as "an inhuman, sexist rape apologist" on Twitter in February and Dutton has indicated that he will be taking legal action in The Australian, this should be referenced and included though because of the extreme tone used I wish to raise it before adding it into the article 120.29.58.76 (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)