This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.208.16.221 (talk) at 03:41, 19 April 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:41, 19 April 2006 by 198.208.16.221 (talk)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Danby's preselection
- Strictly speaking Danby will not be preselected until the Public Office Selection Cttee votes, which I think will be on Thursday night. But his 75% local vote assures his endorsement.
- I cannot provide a published source for the preselection voting, since it has not been reported in the press (not as newsworthy as Hotham, obviously). I conducted the count and I can tell you that Danby polled 277 votes to van Leeuwen's 89, with 2 informal. You can take my word for it or not as you please. Adam 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
So it's OK to assert things without published sources? I'm struggling to keep up with the complexity of the rules here. DarrenRay 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
That depends on what the "things" are. Most statements of fact in articles are not contentious and don't need to be sourced. If I write "Mark Latham was born in Sydney," that is not a contentious statement and doesn't need a source unless someone challenges it. If I write "Mark Latham is clinically insane," that is a contentious statement (although perfectly true in my opinion) and a reference must be provided. Personally I think source-fetishism is taken too far at Misplaced Pages. Other encyclopaedias don't provide sources at all, but that is because people trust the editorial processes at those encyclopaedias. Since Misplaced Pages has no editorial process at all in the sense that contributors can write whatever they like, more referencing is needed. The trick is to strike a balance between referencing all contentious statements and not cluttering the text with citations. Adam 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adam, The only reason I reverted your link was that it should really be to the original source, the AFR. Is this link not available? Subscriber only? cheers, 03:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)