Talk:Division of Bennelong

2007 Federal Election

Why not wait until either Maxine McKew has claimed victory, or John Howard has conceded defeat before saying who won it in the 2007 election? --Surturz (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good idea but reverting the page to a version from two months ago was a very bad one as the page has been vastly improved since mid September. - Galloglass 17:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As much as I'd like nothing more than to see Howard ousted from his own seat, the result's far from certain yet. Shoemoney2night (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The section should not be changed until there is an official announcement (i.e. a source meeting Wikipedia's verifiability requirements). (220.240.133.224 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

i.e. The Australian Electoral Commission announcement in the coming days. Mattrix18 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References regarding Maxine McKew's likely win have been added to the article, however there has still not been an official announcement on the fate of Bennelong. User:Jack_Merridew contributed Bennelong now a Labor seat: McKew, which is only sufficient as a reference: "Labor challenger Maxine McKew is stopping just short of formally claiming victory in the battle for former prime minister John Howard's seat of Bennelong." [Emphasis added] (User:Timeshift9 contributed much the same: "But she said she was stopping short of officially declaring the seat hers.") The situation will be decided shortly, and one hopes editors can restrain themselves for a few hours or a few days for the sake of the article and adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. (220.240.6.94 (talk) 03:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Seems the anon wants it to say "Howard" for a few more hours - enjoy them, and be sure and check back tomorrow! --Jack Merridew 07:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, jack merridew is a noob. The guy he acused of wanting to see howard's name longer actually made the article say 'former Prime Minister' instead of 'Prime Minister' and 'expected to lose' instead of 'expected to narrowly lose' [1]. Not much of a howard supporter! Just goes to show just because you have a pretty user page doesn't mean you have a clue :) 130.56.65.24 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Jack, please try to be mature and constructive. The courtesy of assumed good faith was extended to you, it's a pretty simple thing to extend it to others, and to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines and policies such as the three-revert rule. The purpose of this page is to discuss improving the article and your contribution - if productive and mature - on the issue of an official announcement would have been welcome. (It still is.) I am going to continue to improve the article in good faith, but will observe 3RR. Doing otherwise would only lead to edit warring (without civil and productive discussion on this page) and I have no wish to see the article descend into page protection over what should be a minor matter. Admin oversight would be moot given the time it would take - but by the same token, why is it so unbearable to wait a short while for the official announcement? Finally, as one editor to another, I hope that you continue to contribute to Wikipedia, Jack. I encourage you to make productive use of discussion pages, especially if there is something you disagree with, but not to cast irrelevant and impolite aspersions. Good luck, 220.240.6.94 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the page that will tell us when the result has been declared officially. --Melburnian (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Melburnian, that is a very useful resource. Unfortunately, it looks like there will be no end to the edit war with the latest edit by 124.169.112.42. Sadly, a request for page protection may be necessary. (220.240.6.94 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

I've put on semi-protection (blocking unregistered users and new accounts) for one day. Other articles suffering from Post-Election Edit War Syndrome are similarly temporarily protected. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

McKew is no the memeber

Maxine McKew is now the emember for bennelong. She has won the ballot and is being swon in, along with the rest of parliament later this week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.153.111 (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please can you supply a source. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that she was today appointed as the parliamentary secratary to the prime minister. they can' do that if she sin't an MP. Maxine mcKew is officially the MP for Bennelong, it has been reported on Sky News. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.236.199 (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Australian Electoral Commission (remember them they count count the votes and give official results) says that only 88.8%(~81,000 of 97,000) as at 00:01 30/11/07 WSST has been counted leaving about 16,000 votes uncounted, they also say These results are not final. at the end of the page. to me that means that they havent finished counting given that theres on ~2,000 difference with ~16,000 still to count. They can appoint anyone to office positions if they come up short in the numbers they just replace them with someone else. Gnangarra 15:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

58.166.236.199 please remember that wiki is an encyclopaedia not a news blog so only when the Australian Electoral Commission announce a final result can we say here that Maxine McKew is the new MP. - Galloglass 15:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if you look on the parliament house website for Bennelong which is linked to at the bottom of the page, you can see it says "Polls have not been declared in this electoral division". So I'd take that to mean that they haven't announced McKew to have won the seat yet. --124.171.166.209 (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. The official AEC website page for Bennelong states that for first preferences, Howard has 38,545 votes (45.65%) while McKew has 38,181 votes (45.22%). It doesn't say how many votes still need to be counted, but 90,013 have been counted and 97,573 voters are registered in the district. And McKew has just claimed victory. I'm confused. Do they go by the two party preferred vote to see who wins the division? --Lakeyboy 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they most certainly do. That's what confuses so many people about the great Australian electoral system! Frickeg 00:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What nobody (including myself) has mentioned is that s.64 of the constitution permits a non-member of parliament to be appointed a minister (the term includes parliamentary secretaries, a later invention). They can remain in the position for no longer than 3 months, unless they become a member of either house. If it had turned out that McKew hadn't won, her appointment as Parl Sec would still have been perfectly proper, but she would have had to vacate the job by today, 3 March 2008. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

References & Wikification

I've corrected the citation of references throughout the article, which included removing numerous extraneous links. The Galaxy references in the Polls section were tagged citation needed because the URL is 404/Not Found. The wikification is a bit hit-and-miss due to the formatting of the article, but typically only the first use of a term needs to be wiki-linked - it can be annoying for readers if every instance is in blue text. (220.240.39.66 (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC))

Counting of votes

Why does it take so long to count the votes? Has Howard officially lost his seat now, or is it still just "unofficial but certain"? --kingboyk 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The delay is down to postal voting. Anyone who posts their vote before the close of poll has the right to have their vote included so we will not know the final result until the last of the votes have arrived from around the world. - Galloglass 11:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm how do they know when they've received all the votes? Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a clue! ;) - Galloglass 00:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The final day on which postal ballots posted prior to the election can be received is (I think) this friday, but it could be next friday. The AEC can't draw preliminary conclusions, and must wait for all the papers to arrive before doing the distribution of preferences. A single vote might change the order of elimination in such a way as to change the result (well, at least in theory).

The experience of party scrutineers is what's being relied on in deciding this vote. While it remains technically possible for Howard to hold the seat, it would require such a massive perturbation in the votes yet to be counted that fraud would be a more likely explanation than statistical variance. As all sensible commentators are saying the final result is beyond doubt, there is no reason for McKew not to proceed on the basis that she will be declared the winner when the final count is complete. Chrismaltby (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image of balloons

Image does not improve the article (and particularly not the other articles it's been put in). Articles should not have images for the sake of having images; they should show something about the subject.

The Image demonstrates the extent of electioneering, indicating the importance of the seat outcome at the 2007 election. And btw, sign your comments whoever you are please. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Polls section

I'd question whether the polls section is particularly necessary here. The election results are given in the electoral results page, while, as to the others, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Frickeg (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Borderline sexist?

Is it necessary to highlight gender here? I am unsure about it, though I fear you could read sexist sentiments into the sentence. (ie it is remarkable that a woman was able to defeat a man in an election). I also think that there are other more notable things about Howard's defeat in his electorate than the candidates gender, such as a complete political novice defeating arguably the most experienced politician contesting the whole election. Note that the editor has made similar edits to the Maxine McKew article [2] and to the Women and government in Australia article [3]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleakcomb (talk • contribs) 07:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrrg. Forgot to sign and to tell you what I was talking about! Here is the section of the article I was talking about.

This was only the second time in Australian history that a sitting Prime Minister had been defeated in their own electorate, the first being Stanley Bruce in 1929. It was also the first time a woman defeated a sitting prime minister in their own electorate.

Emphasis my own.

Bleakcomb (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Electoral results for the Division of Bennelong - can anyone figure out the issue with the colour template?

For the 1998 result. Surely it's not that one of the candidate's names is long..? Timeshift (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. Which colour is causing you trouble - the ACS one? (I love that candidate name, because it backfired so horribly. It was supposed to be a big screed against Howard for some obscure reason, but since most sources abbreviate things like middle names, he ended up being listed in most places as "Prime Piss".) Frickeg (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. For me, in the 1990 result table, all the colours are about an inch long horizontally. Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd. What browser are you using? Maybe it's something to do with that - it's fine on Firefox, as far as I can see. Frickeg (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm having the same issue with Timeshift for 1998 in Chrome. There's nothing that stands out as wrong with the table, but I'm pretty hopeless with this stuff at the best of times. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, i'm using Chrome too. Tested IE11, worked fine. Sigh. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I just went in through Chrome, and it looks like it is the long candidate name causing the problem. I've never encountered this before, but perhaps if we raised it with some more tech-savvy people at Template talk:Election box or somewhere similar? Frickeg (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

While we're at it, I don't get the members table colours but I do still get the results table colours at articles like Division of Adelaide when viewing on my mobile. I was wondering if it happens on other mobile devices? I've tried two mobile browser apps, same issue. Timeshift (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect the difference might be something to do with the fact that the results tables are all coded through the master template at Template:Australian politics/party colours, while the members tables all use their own individual templates (e.g. Template:Australian politics/party colours/Labor). I've thought it would be worthwhile to switch the members tables over to the former for a while, but there seems to be some coding issue and I've never been able to get the master template to work on the tables. No idea why. Frickeg (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Another one of those 'just is' things... got it :) Timeshift (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note at the template talk page; hopefully someone will know what's going on. Frickeg (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it's a bug in Chrome. The very long candidate name "Prime Minister John Piss the Family Court and Legal Aid" seems to be causing a miscalculation in the column widths. If I shorten this to "Prime Minister John Piss the Family", it displays fine. Add on the word "Court", it wraps to two lines of text and the colour bar gets wider by an amount similar to the length of the word "Court" minus the available space after "the". Continue adding words, the colour bar continues to widen, each time the extra width of the colour bar matches the length of the additional word. Force a line break, like this and all is fine again. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! Frickeg (talk) 00:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Chrome is trying to resolve a discrepancy between width settings for the first two columns of this six-column table, and in so doing is trying to satisfy the width of the third column as well. In {{Election box begin}} the first two columns (Party) are set to a combined width of 130px, and the third column (Candidate) to a width of 17em. However, in {{Election box candidate AU party}}, the width of the second column, that for the party name, is set to 130px. Since the first and second columns have already been set to total 130px, this means that by subtraction the first column must be zero width. Clearly it's actually wider than that, because we see coloured dabs. My suggestion is to take the forced width out of the second column of {{Election box candidate AU party}} and put it in the first, as a small value like 5px. This should allow the second column to occupy whatever space is left out of 130px once 5px and the margins/borders/padding have been subtracted. This should not be stated explicitly: it won't be 125px but something less than that, because different browsers interpret the Box Model differently. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

demographics

I'm adding a demographics section with hyperlink to abs 2011 census results.

If tables are wanted, they can be produced with the Excel to wikitable tool

-- Callinus (talk) 09:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC).

Example

	Both parents born overseas	Father only born overseas	Mother only born overseas	Both parents born in Australia	Birthplace not stated	Total responses
Australian	1,239	4,222	3,119	22,685	570	31,835
Australian Aboriginal	3	4	5	59	0	71
Chinese	29,262	399	562	412	444	31,079
Croatian	711	64	40	121	16	952
Dutch	562	231	79	239	18	1,129
English	7,296	3,376	2,277	18,162	572	31,683
Filipino	2,072	29	132	24	60	2,317
French	350	62	41	200	6	659
German	1,077	288	209	1,507	44	3,125
Greek	1,386	209	106	717	49	2,467
Hungarian	382	72	23	49	9	535
Indian	5,133	100	78	57	83	5,451
Irish	1,760	866	612	8,012	196	11,446
Italian	4,317	1,069	411	2,355	177	8,329
Korean	6,831	12	47	20	135	7,045
Lebanese	1,884	273	171	479	51	2,858
Macedonian	198	21	16	36	8	279
Maltese	370	83	74	148	13	688
Maori	288	34	16	12	8	358
New Zealander	670	222	155	82	10	1,139
Polish	691	75	74	96	19	955
Russian	544	51	39	65	6	705
Scottish	1,636	870	598	5,508	114	8,726
Serbian	417	34	9	27	9	496
Sinhalese	356	0	3	3	6	368
South African	462	56	34	14	5	571
Spanish	586	29	45	55	6	721
Turkish	287	25	8	16	3	339
Vietnamese	805	23	31	3	24	886
Welsh	256	77	41	249	9	632
Other(d)	14,989	1,085	873	934	304	18,185
Ancestry not stated	1,043	110	99	688	5,398	7,338
Total responses(c)	87,863	14,071	10,027	63,034	8,372	183,367
Total persons(c)	81,037	8,659	6,115	45,004	7,895	148,710

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jerome-4935.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Too much background information?

I am concerned about the amount of background text in the early parts of this article but is it necessary or is it useful to understand the history of this seat? Qwerty123M (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)