Talk:Mark Latham

"On 6 July he called a press conference and denounced the government for maintaining what he called a "dirt unit," which he said was gathering personal material about him, including details of his failed first marriage. The government denied that any such unit existed, but most observers believe that Liberal Party researchers have accumulated more potentially embarrassing material about Latham, which will be used during the election campaign."

The last sentence has been truncated at "but most observers"...

Rather than removing the entire thing, how about change "but most observers" to "but some observers"?

Makes sense to me. I have trouble seeing what the issue was with that sentence - of course the Liberals are going to want to release embarrasing material about Latham. They've said as much themselves. Lacrimosus 23:09, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Borofkin 23:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Opinion polls

I have edited the bit which said by Mid-August he was ahead in all published opinion polls; in the Westpoll released on 9 August it was revealed Latham's support in Western Australia had fallen to below Simon Creane's levels - and that if an election was held at the time of polling, he would lose Western Australia's 3 most marginal Labor seats. - Mark 08:54, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are three national opinion polls, Newspoll, Morgan and Saulwick. Labor was well ahead in each of these in their last public poll. Regional polls don't count. Adam 08:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. So long as it doesn't say "in every published poll" because that clearly is not the case. - Mark 14:12, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss the polls in more detail is at Australian legislative election, 2004. Adam 14:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Information in the article

What does it mean by there is too much information for an article of this size? that doesn't make any sense. If information needs to be put into the article, then put it in! Maybe it can be somewhat reduced in size, but there's a difference between butchering the information and copy-editting it. I'm reverting and hopefully we can fix this in discussion. I'm certainly open to ideas, but not if it makes the information misleading. The other problem I have with the edit Adam Carr made was because it does not properly attribute the research efforts of Margaret Simons, where I got this information from. Bad, very bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Any material added to articles needs to be at a level of detail proportionate to the rest of the article. Otherwise, someone could add 5,000 words about what Latham did in primary school. Are the details of the affairs of Liverpool Council in the 1990s really more important than Latham's parliamentary career? In any case the material was not very well written.
• Encyclopaedia articles are not supposed to contain references. The article can be referenced at the end as a "Further reading."

Adam 09:25, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's totally incorrect. When I added this information, I disclosed fully where I got it from. I didn't get it from the original sources, I got this from a secondary source - Simons work. Wikipedia does require references - after all, why else did they include the [1] type references for weblinks? Also - Latham's record in the council is very important to understanding him as a leader and to see what his past financial track record was like. Your revert is basically POV, btw. Incidently, you're the one who did a copy edit that wasn't entirely accurate and can be construed as misleading. As you once said to me: please check your facts before editting. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Adam might also like to read Wikipedia:Cite sources a bit more carefully:

"In the text of an article, cite references parenthetically as "(Author-Last-Name, Year)". If necessary, add chapters ("chap. 3") or pages ("p. 15" or "pp. 12–23") after the year (+ comma), e.g. if the information is hard to find in a large book. When a reference is used as a noun, put the year in parentheses, e.g. "Milton (1653) says..." For two authors, use (Author1 & Author2, year); for more authors, use (Author1 et al., Year). Note that such in-text citations are often unnecessary, unless there is a long list of references and it is not clear which one the reader should consult for more information on a specific topic."

and

"If you consult an external source while writing an article, citing it is basic intellectual honesty. More than that, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite."

Wikipedia does require references. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles most certainly should contain references, IMHO, since otherwise the veracity of the information can in no way be ascertained, and you just end up with a bunch of weasel words. As far as the council stint goes, its very appearance in the journal article indicates that it's of some relevance to Latham's current political career (and the Liberal party certainly seems to think so too . . .), so we are obliged to at least give it some mention. The council business isn't *more* important, but the article as a whole could really do with more details on Latham's writings and political philosophy, and, related to this, his background. As TBSDY says, the article itself makes interesting reading. Lacrimosus 11:28, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My take is that the stuff on the debt-servicing ratio is a little technical and overly fine-grained for the article, seeing the attack on his council record has not been sustained through the campaign. --Robert Merkel 12:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see your point, but Latham's track record on finances was under attack by Howard, and will more than likely remain under attack as the election starts hotting up. We should try to accurately characterise the Liverpool council arguments. This information (contrary to what Adam Carr believes) is actually pretty important and really needs to be included. I'm willing to come to a compromise, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adam's version contains more than enough detail, IMO. The current version is far too detailed and far less readable. We're not trying to write a detailed analysis of every piece of political cut and thrust in an article that summarises Latham's career. --Robert Merkel 23:02, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But there's more to Latham than just his career - his writings and his ideas should also be included. I don't think we're at risk of truncating the description of his parliamentary career, since it will only be added to in future - the council period is relevant info as well, particularly because it seems to have been something of a formative stage for him. Precise wordings can be varied, but something should remain. Lacrimosus 02:04, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to reedit Adam Carr's copy edit. Looks like it might be OK now. I totally agree that this article is woefully lacking on his books. They're quite significant to any understanding of Latham. I'll try and incorporate info as I find it. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• The only reason the affairs of Liverpool Council ten years ago are relevant is that they are now being used against Latham in the campaign. That should of course be stated, and a brief summary of the facts of the matter given. But the details are of no intrinsic importance to this article.

• Why aren't they intrinsically important? what exactly does that mean? important to what? Information on Latham's term as mayor is important, and the more info that we get the better, IMO. Sure, I don't want to add crap, but your statement that it's only relevant because they are now being used against Latham in an election campaign is ridiculous. It'll still be relevant even if Latham resigns from politics and they stop attacking him as he'd be out of public office! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:53, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• On the referencing, your text already identifies the author and source of the facts you are giving. It doesn't need an additional reference in parentheses (which is not a proper academic citation anyway, since it doesn't give a journal number or an exact date).
• On encyclopaedia referencing, I acknowledge the policy quoted above, although I disagree with it. Since Wikipedia has a policy against "original research," it must therefore be based on secondary sources. If I cited every secondary source I used when writing articles, the articles would be twice as long. Encyclopaedia articles are understood to be condensations of other people's work, and should not require referencing unless a matter is disputed. Adam 04:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)