User talk:Charlie Sanders

Welcome to my humble Talk Page. I would add some fancy graphics and maybe a picture of a cat here, but I lack the skillz and the determination.

I appreciate all advice and awesomeness, apologies in advance for my n00bsauce, and a special thanks for the support so far from Cullen328 and Sam Sailor!

Charlie Sanders (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Charlie Sanders! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

DUSA page deletion[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A page which I used to edit occasionally, about a still-extant and very large organisation called DUSA, the Deakin University Student Association, has disappeared from Wikipedia and the link in the Disambiguation page now redirects to a paragraph on the page for Deakin University. Could someone please give me some history on the page’s deletion and advise me on how to re-create an independent Wikipedia page for the Student Association.

If it helps, our 2003 Student President was Bridget McKenzie who is now a Federal Australian Senator and the Deputy Leader of the Australian National Party and Australia’s Minister for Sport, Rural and Regional Communications, and something else.

The DUSA President for 2004 and 2006 is now the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) Chief of Staff, and the President in 2005 was an Australian ‘Young Indigenous Australian of the Year’ or something similar.

DUSA is quoted and referenced repeatedly in Australian Federal Senate Enquiries, Federal HANSARD transcripts, Victorian State Parliament HANSARD transcripts, journals, and many media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Sanders (talk • contribs) 05:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please email me at (Redacted) when my questions have been attended-to, as I suffer from ADHD and Severe Anxiety and find it very difficult with my disabilities to keep track of every alert or notification I receive. Thank you so much. Charlie Sanders (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlie. Deakin University Student Association was redirected to Deakin University#Deakin University Student Association following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deakin University Student Association in 2012. I notice that the article was deleted and then a redirect was created. Perhaps closing admin TParis could determine, if the deleted article can be draftified or userfied, or if Charlie should start from scratch in draft space? In any case, Charlie, I'd be happy to help you get started. Sam Sailor 11:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I’m happy to start from scratch if you have a template for not-for-profit or membership or service-based or trade unions… it’s a bit of everything, I’m afraid (and that’s a result of changes in Legislation regarding student unions, changes in administration, etc.) which might work in Word with some Excel (or just Word tables if Excel is too much? I would obviously need to find and add sources and links, which I will probably keep in order on my end in an Excel format and then possibly drop the whole body of work into a github so that others can access/edit/destroy my work).

I really am a complete novice at the layout stuff, so any kind of template for a student union or similar would be so, so appreciated!

Charlie Sanders (talk) 12:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charlie. Forgive me the belated reply, but I did not see your message, although I have your talk page on my watchlist. (It's always a good idea to ping people in one's reply.) To my knowledge we do not have a boilerplate for this case, but have a look at some of the articles in this search result, and you get some ideas. Flinders University Student Association for instance is not too bad, short and sweet, could do with a few more good sources, but not too bloated. First and foremost it avoids sounding like the association's About page. I'll leave you an invitation to the Teahouse, there's always people ready to answer questions over there. You are, naturally, also always welcome to contact me. Kind regards, Sam Sailor 10:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha I didn't see this reply until just now, and suddenly your invitation to the Teahouse makes much more sense! Charlie Sanders (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of Oolong is waiting for you[edit]

Hello! Charlie Sanders, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sam Sailor 10:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ah, right, I never said 'thank you' to you for your invitation, Sam Sailor, and so I am doing so now: Thank you for your kind invitation! I shall already have seen you there! Charlie Sanders (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT reply to comment on 'empathy' Wiktionary discussion page[edit]

I'm really enjoying the resurgence and trendiness of scientific interrogation into the physical nature of feelings, thoughts, impulses, urges, etc., and the resulting lexicographical (Is that even a word? It should be!) evolution of the language we use to describe and talk about these phenomena. Having spent several years studying (and attempting to implement!) the Acceptance and Commitment Therapy framework/model, I find it increasingly-increasingly frustrating to have to explain to people that, despite it being in the same part of the body as the face, the brain is not mystical or ethereal - it is just another organ, made of meat and juice, and controlled by electricity and chemicals, like alllll the other organs! and that therefore it is kinda silly to refer to, and to conceptualise, things that happen in the brain as 'mental' as opposed to 'physical'.

This differentiation between the two types of experiences - 'mental' pain vs 'physical' pain; 'mental' illness vs 'physical' illness; 'mental' disability vs 'physical' disability; 'mental' exhaustion vs 'physical' exhaustion; and so on - in our lexicons has a massive influence on the way that societies view and value and validate (and other verbs beginning with 'v') 'mental' experiences "as opposed to" 'physical' experiences: 'mental' differences or difficulties of every kind are overwhelmingly perceived and described/referred-to as being related to a person's 'strength of character' and 'willpower', when we are, in fact, no more capable of 'willing' our brains to stop having thoughts, feelings, urges, impulses, wants, needs, instincts, and so on than we are of controlling the insulin production in our pancreas using only our character (although I've heard that the spleen is rather easily persuaded by charm, if the situation is right…)

Regarding empathy, it's an involuntary reaction to a particular combination of stimulus of the senses (hence: 'a feeling'; also called 'an emotion') in the body of humans, and in some other animals. These stimulus are initially 'felt' (received) through nerve receptors throughout the body ('senses') and are instantly sent to the lymbic system of the brain - the body's 'sorting hat' - to be checked for immediate danger, to which the lymbic system responds with the famous "fight or flight" impulse, and is then channelled to the cerebral cortex for rational response. A feeling of empathy *typically* triggers other involuntary actions and behaviours throughout the body, including: • other feelings, such as x y z (sorry, this will complete this soon! • impulses, such as vocal or tactile expressions of sympathy, compassion, soothing, or reassurance towards the other person or animal; • thoughts, such as worrying about the wellbeing of the other person or animal, or memories of experiences similar to that of the other person or animal, sensations, such as heaviness in the chest, or difficulty swallowing, throughout the body; urges, such as crying, averting the eyes, seeking comfort; Charlie Sanders (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Contemplating {user|Cullen328}'s "potential politicians"[edit]

I'm attempting to make sense of the concept of "potential politicians", as referenced in {user|Cullen328}'s talk page Topic re: 'deleting' these figures unless they were already notable in other ways.

The term "politician" can refer to different spectrums… spectra? :D of public figures depending on the political system in which they are active. Additionally, the definition of "politics" is different depending on the discipline, the school of thought, and one's personal philosophy - one definition I read while trying to decide on my /own/ opinion said that the definition of politics is inherently fluid, and that this was a good thing, for reasons I don't need to reproduce in full right now. Suffice to say that a potential politician might mean someone who aspires to holding an elected representative position within a system of government, or it might mean the bright daughter of an elderly influential local religious leader from a vocally-oppressed community. The feminist movement famously claimed that 'the personal is political', which makes each of us potential politicians; Australian "politicians" are exclusively elected or appointed office-bearers, while American "politicians" can just be people who have said they intend to be nominees for candidacy for election - they still have to nominate, be found eligible, gain selection as the candidate, and then participate in an election campaign and be voted-in by the public before they would qualify for the title of "politician"; conversely, anyone in a position of representation - a trade union Secretary, a business leader, an academic, a social justice campaigner, a media personality, a prominent public servant, could all be thought of as "potential" politicians - some might say that, as people who speak on behalf of others, or who already influence public policy or opinion without "holding office" or being a Legislated part of the Government, they are "engaged in the business of politics" and therefore already "politicians" even without intentions of election; again, Joe Bloe from down the street who has a long-standing dispute with the Local Council and decides he's going to shake up the system!! also qualifies as a "potential" politician because of his personal intentions - if he wants to be a politician, he's a potential politician. With my knowledge, connections, experience, and notability in my fields, I am a potential politician, and have in fact already been what some call a "politician", in more than one role, and in more than one way! Even the internal politics of organisations such as workplaces, high schools, community organisations… Wikipedia editing… if it involves people interacting in groups, there's going to be politics, and where there's smoke, there's fire. So: a definition needs to be agreed-upon, or, preferably (imo), a different term altogether. "Potential" could be anyone - perhaps "aspiring" narrows it down to someone who at least has the personal intention towards the field of "politics"; maybe "politician" can be qualified to "elected representative" or "public office-bearer". In such a way, the terminology can refer to a general class of people, and those can then be further qualified according to their local, cultural, professional, personal, etc. circumstances. Okay, it's 6am here, so I'm at my least-sensical and most-napical. I'll try to make some sense if you reply in the receptive; if this is all kind of beside the point, I'd love for you to note a handful of articles that illustrate what your definition was aiming at so that I can better understand my mistake. Oh, good grief! YAWN! I sleep now bai zzzzz Charlie Sanders (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De-USA-Centrificating Wiki Article on Suicide and Homosexuality: Draft - input/help appreciated![edit]

Suicide among LGBT youth Research has found that attempted suicide rates and suicidal ideation among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth is significantly higher than among the general population.[1] LGBT adolescents have the highest rate of suicide attempts.[2] According to LGBT rights organizations as well as scientific research, this is linked to homophobic attitudes and heterosexist discrimination, including political attacks on the civil rights of LGBT people such as in the contemporary efforts to halt the establish of same-sex marriage.[3]

The passage of laws that discriminate against LGBT people have been shown to have significant negative impacts on the physical and mental health and well-being of LGBT youth; for example, depression and drug use among LGBT people have been shown to increase significantly after the passage of discriminatory laws.[4] By contrast, the passage of laws that recognize LGBT people as equal with regard to civil rights have been shown to have significant positive impacts on the physical and mental health and well-being of LGBT youth; for example, a study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation (LGB youth), resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States.[5]

Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been specifically addressing sexuality or gender.[6] Since a series of suicides in the early 2000s, more attention has been focused on the issues and underlying causes in an effort to reduce suicides among LGBT youth. Research by the Family Acceptance Project has demonstrated that "parental acceptance, and even neutrality, with regard to a child's sexual orientation" can bring down the attempted suicide rate.[2]

The National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention notes that there is no national data (for the U.S.) regarding suicidal ideation or suicide rates among the LGBT population as a whole or in part, for LGBT youth or LGBT seniors, for example.[7] In part because there is no agreed percentage of the national population that is LGBT, or even identifies as LGBT, also death certificates do not include sexuality information.[3] A 1986 study noted that previous large scale studies of completed suicides did not "consider sexual orientation in their data analyses".[8]

Reports and studies Edit

Clinical social worker Caitlin Ryan's Family Acceptance Project (San Francisco State University) conducted the first study of the effect of family acceptance and rejection on the health, mental health and well-being of LGBT youth, including suicide, HIV/AIDS and homelessness.[9] Their research shows that LGBT youths "who experience high levels of rejection from their families during adolescence (when compared with those young people who experienced little or no rejection from parents and caregivers) were more than eight times likely to have attempted suicide, more than six times likely to report high levels of depression, more than three times likely to use illegal drugs and more than three times likely to be at high risk for HIV or other STDs" by the time they reach their early 20s.[9][dead link]

Numerous studies have shown that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth have a higher rate of suicide attempts than do heterosexual youth. The Suicide Prevention Resource Center synthesized these studies and estimated that between 5 and 10% of LGBT youth, depending on age and sex groups, have attempted suicide, a rate 1.5-3 times higher than heterosexual youth.[10] A U.S. government study, titled Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, published in 1989, found that LGBT youth are four times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people.[11] This higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and overall mental health problems among gay teenagers compared to their heterosexual peers has been attributed to minority stress.[12][13] "More than 34,000 people die by suicide each year," making it "the third leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds with lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth attempting suicide up to four times more than their heterosexual peers."[14]

It is impossible to know the exact suicide rate of LGBT youth because sexuality and gender minorities are often hidden and even unknown, particularly in this age group. Further research is currently being done to explain the prevalence of suicide among LGBT youths.[15][16][17]

In terms of school climate, "approximately 25 percent of lesbian, gay and bisexual students and university employees have been harassed due to their sexual orientation, as well as a third of those who identify as transgender, according to the study and reported by the Chronicle of Higher Education."[18] Research has found the presence of gay-straight alliances (GSAs) in schools is associated with decreased suicide attempts; in a study of LGBT youth, ages 13–22, 16.9% of youth who attended schools with GSAs attempted suicide versus 33.1% of students who attended schools without GSAs.[19]

"LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year."[20] In addition, "LGBQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to have seriously considered leaving their institution as a result of harassment and discrimination."[21] Susan Rankin, a contributing author to the report in Miami, found that “Unequivocally, The 2010 State of Higher Education for LGBT People demonstrates that LGBT students, faculty and staff experience a ‘chilly’ campus climate of harassment and far less than welcoming campus communities."[21]

The internet is also an important factor for LGBT. An international study found that suicidal LGBT showed important differences with suicidal heterosexuals, in a matched-pairs study.[22] That study found suicidal LGBT were more likely to communicate suicidal intentions, more likely to search for new friends online, and found more support online than did suicidal heterosexuals.

According to a study in Taiwan, 1 in 5 or 20% of Taiwanese gay people have attempted suicide.[23]

The black transgender and gender non-conforming community has been found to face discrimination to a higher degree than the rest of the transgender community, which is due to the intersection of racism and transphobia. Research has found that this community experiences a higher level of poverty, suicide attempts, and harassment, while the effects of HIV and being refused health care due to transphobia and/or racism are greater as well. The National LGBTQ task force conducted a survey to discern these trends among the black transgender non-conforming community in with the overall transgender community. [24]

The survey found that amongst the black respondents 49% reported having attempted suicide.[24] Additional findings were that this group reported that 26% are unemployed and 34% reported an annual income of less than $10,000 per year. 42% of respondents reported homelessness[25] which is five times the rate of the US homelessness rate. Also, the report revealed that the black transgender or gender non-conforming community reported 20.23%[24] were living with HIV. 27% of black transgender youth reported being physically assaulted, 15% were sexually assaulted and 21% left school due to these instances of harassment.[24]

Impact of same-sex marriage Edit The establishment of same-sex marriage is associated with a significant reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children, with the effect being concentrated among children of a minority sexual orientation (LGB youth). A study of nationwide data from across the United States from January 1999 to December 2015 revealed that the rate of attempted suicide among all schoolchildren in grades 9–12 declined by 7% and the rate of attempted suicide among schoolchildren of a minority sexual orientation (LGB youth) in grades 9–12 declined by 14% in states which established same-sex marriage, resulting in approximately 134,000 fewer children attempting suicide each year in the United States. The researchers took advantage of the gradual manner in which same-sex marriage was established in the United States (expanding from 1 state in 2004 to all 50 states in 2015) to compare the rate of attempted suicide among children in each state over the time period studied. Once same-sex marriage was established in a particular state, the reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children in that state became permanent. No reduction in the rate of attempted suicide among children occurred in a particular state until that state recognized same-sex marriage. The lead researcher of the study observed that "laws that have the greatest impact on gay adults may make gay kids feel more hopeful for the future".[26][27][28][29][30]

Developmental psychology perspectives Edit

The diathesis-stress model suggests that biological vulnerabilities predispose individuals to different conditions such as cancer, heart disease, and mental health conditions like major depression, a risk factor for suicide. Varying amounts of environmental stress increase the probability that these individuals will develop that condition. Minority stress theory suggests that minority status leads to increased discrimination from the social environment which leads to greater stress and health problems. In the presence of poor emotion regulation skills this can lead to poor mental health. Also, the differential susceptibility hypothesis suggests that for some individuals their physical and mental development is highly dependent on their environment in a “for-better-and-for-worse” fashion. That is, individuals who are highly susceptible will have better than average health in highly supportive environments and significantly worse than average health in hostile, violent environments. The model can help explain the unique health problems affecting LGBT populations including increased suicide attempts. For adolescents, the most relevant environments are the family, neighborhood, and school. Adolescent bullying - which is highly prevalent among sexual minority youths - is a chronic stressor that can increase risk for suicide via the diathesis-stress model. In a study of American lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents, Mark Hatzenbuehler examined the effect of the county-level social environment.[31] This was indexed by the proportion of same-sex couples and Democrats living in the counties. Also included were the proportions of schools with gay-straight alliances as well as anti-bullying and antidiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation. He found that a more conservative social environment elevated risk in suicidal behavior among all youth and that this effect was stronger for LGB youth. Furthermore, he found that the social environment partially mediated the relation between LGB status and suicidal behaviour. Hatzenbuehler found that even after such social as well as individual factors were controlled for, however, that "LGB status remained a significant predictor of suicide attempts."

Institutionalized and internalized homophobia Edit

Institutionalized and internalized homophobia may also lead LGBT youth to not accept themselves and have deep internal conflicts about their sexual orientation.[32] Parents may abandon or force children out of home after the child's coming out.[33]

Homophobia arrived at by any means can be a gateway to bullying which can take many forms. Physical bullying is kicking, punching, while emotional bullying is name calling, spreading rumors and other verbal abuse. Cyber bullying involves abusive text messages or messages of the same nature on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media networks. Sexual bullying is inappropriate touching, lewd gestures or jokes.[34]

Bullying may be considered a "rite of passage",[35] but studies have shown it has negative physical and psychological effects. "Sexual minority youth, or teens that identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, are bullied two to three times more than heterosexuals", and "almost all transgender students have been verbally harassed (e.g., called names or threatened in the past year at school because of their sexual orientation (89%) and gender expression (89%)") according to Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's Harsh Realities, The Experiences of Transgender Youth In Our Nation’s Schools.[14]

This issue has been a hot topic for media outlets over the past few years, and even more so in the months of September and October 2010. President Barack Obama has posted an "It Gets Better" video on The White House website as part of the It Gets Better Project. First lady Michelle Obama attributes such behaviors to the examples parents set as, in most cases, children follow their lead.[36]

Projects Edit

The Trevor Project Edit "The Trevor Project was founded by director/producer Peggy Rajski, producer Randy Stone and screenwriter James Lecesne, creators of the 1994 Academy Award-winning short film, Trevor, a comedy/drama about a gay 13-year-old boy who, when rejected by friends because of his sexuality, makes an attempt to take his life."[37] They are an American non-profit organization that operates the only nationwide, around-the-clock crisis and suicide prevention helpline for LGBT youth, the project "is determined to end suicide among LGBTQ youth by providing life-saving and life-affirming resources including our nationwide, 24/7 crisis intervention lifeline, digital community and advocacy/educational programs that create a safe, supportive and positive environment for everyone."[37]

It Gets Better Project Edit It Gets Better Project is an Internet-based campaign founded in the US by Dan Savage and his partner Terry Miller in September 2010,[38][39] in response to the suicides of teenagers who were bullied because they were gay or because their peers suspected that they were gay. The videos that were posted emphasized the idea that hope is possible despite the bullying that LGBT individuals may face.[40] Its goal is to prevent suicide among LGBT youth by having gay adults convey the message through social media videos that these teens' lives will improve.[41] The project has grown rapidly: over 200 videos were uploaded in the first week,[42] and the project's YouTube channel reached the 650 video limit in the next week.[43] The project is now organized on its own website, the It Gets Better Project,[43] and includes more than 30,000 entries with more than 40 million views from people of all sexual orientations, including many celebrities.[44] A book of essays from the project, It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living, was released in March 2011.[45]

In 2017 news emerged of a study that found that asking youth to accept negative experiences as the only coping strategy, potentially exacerbates stress. This study from the University of Arizona, led to claims that the It Gets Better Project may do more harm than good.[46]

Policy responses Edit

A number of policy options have been repeatedly proposed to address this issue. Some advocate intervention at the stage in which youth are already suicidal (such as crisis hotlines), while others advocate programs directed at increasing LGBT youth access to factors found to be "protective" against suicide (such as social support networks or mentors).

One proposed option is to provide LGBT-sensitivity and anti-bullying training to current middle and high school counselors and teachers. Citing a study by Jordan et al., school psychologist Anastasia Hansen notes that hearing teachers make homophobic remarks or fail to intervene when students make such remarks are both positively correlated with negative feelings about an LGBT identity[47] Conversely, a number of researchers have found the presence of LGBT-supportive school staff to be related to "positive outcomes for LGBT youth".[47] Citing a 2006 Psychology in the Schools report, The Trevor Project notes that "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth who believe they have just one school staff member with whom they can talk about problems are only 1/3 as likely as those without that support to... report making multiple suicide attempts in the past year."[48]

Another frequently proposed policy option involves providing grant incentives for schools to create and/or support Gay-Straight Alliances, student groups dedicated to providing a social support network for LGBT students. Kosciw and Diaz, researchers for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, found in a nationwide survey that "students in schools with a GSA were less likely to feel unsafe, less likely to miss school, and more likely to feel that they belonged at their school than students in schools with no such clubs."[49] Studies have shown that social isolation and marginalization at school are psychologically damaging to LGBT students, and that GSAs and other similar peer-support group can be effective providers of this "psychosocial support".[47]

Early interventions for LGBT youth Edit Be proactive and understanding Edit Educators can be proactive in helping adolescents with gender identity and the questions/ issues that sometimes come that can help teens so that they do not resort to suicide, drug abuse, homelessness, and many psychological problems. Van Wormer & McKinney (2003)[50] relate that understanding LBGT students is the first step to suicide prevention. They use a harm reduction approach, which meets students where they are to reduce any continued harm linked with their behaviors. They relate that creating a supportive and culturally diverse environment is crucial to social acceptance in an educational setting.

LGBT role models/resources Edit It is beneficial to hire LGBT teachers to serve as role models and support LGBT students. Many of the resources in the U.S. are crisis driven not prevention driven which needs to be the other way around in order to prevent suicide for LGBT adolescents. Furthermore, studies show that counselors and teachers need to be trained in self-awareness, sexuality and sexual diversity with themselves and with students. Researchers also suggest inviting gay/lesbian and bisexual panels from colleges or universities to conduct classroom discussions. Education and resources is key to helping LGBT students and families. According to researcher Rob Cover, role models and resources benefit LGBT youth only if they avoid replicating stereotypes and provide diverse visual and narrative representations to allow broad identification.[51]

Having a PFLAG (Parents Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and GSA Club are possible resources to promote discussions and leadership roles to LGBT students. These resources extend outside of school and in the community. (Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Boesen, M. J. 2013) report that when schools have a GSA or Gay Straight Alliance club or a club promoting social awareness and camaraderie of sorts, supportive educators, inclusive curricula, and comprehensive policies that LGBT students were victimized less and had more positive school experiences. Students will feel positive and want to be in school.

Teach tolerance and examine a school's climate Edit Examine a school's climate and teach tolerance – Teaching Tolerance is a movement, magazine and website which gives many tools and ideas to help people be tolerant of one another. It demonstrates that the classroom is a reflection of the world around us. Educators can use Teach Tolerance's website and book to download resources and look up creative ways to learn more about LBGT students and teaching tolerance to their students in the classroom. It helps schools get started with anti-bullying training and professional development and resource suggestions. It even relates common roadblocks and tips to starting a GSA club.

Research shows that a collaborative effort must be made in order to prevent LGBT students from being bullied and/or committing suicide. Teachers, administrators, students, families, and communities need to come together to help LGBT students be confident. Each school has its own individuality, its own sense of "self", whether it be the teachers, administrators, students, or the surrounding community. In order to tackle the issue of bullying for LGBT students it needs to start with understanding the student population and demographic where the school lies. Educating students, faculty, staff, and school boards on LGBT issues and eliminating homophobia and trans phobia in schools, training staff on diversity acceptance and bullying prevention, and implementing Gay-Straight Alliances is key to suicide prevention for LGBT students (Bacon, Laura Ann 2011).[52] Adolescents grow and are shaped by many factors including internal and external features (Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, & Hymel, 2010).

The school climate must foster respect. Thus, setting the tone for administration, teachers, professionals who enter the building, parents and most importantly the students. People, in general, need to understand their own misconceptions and stereotypes of what being LGBT is. Unless students and adults are educated on the LGBT community, than stereotypes and negative attitudes will continue to exist (Knotts, G., & Gregorio, D. 2011).[53] The GMCLA (Gay Men's Chorus of Los Angeles) use music and singing as a vehicle for changing the attitudes and hearts of people in schools nationwide. Their goal is to bring music to standards-driven curriculum to youth with the purpose of teaching content in innovative and meaningful ways. They instill in students and staff techniques to foster positive meaning of the social and personal issues dealt with in school and society.

Gay, L. (2009) has generated a guide to helping school safety/climate and fostering positive interpersonal relationships through "The Safe Space Kit".[54] This tool helps teachers create a safe space for LGBT students. One of the most effective ways for an educator to create a safe space is to be a supportive ally to LGBT students. This kit has numerous tools for teachers and schools to utilize, including: a hard copy of "The Safe Space Kit" includes the "Guide to Being an Ally", stickers and two Safe Space posters. Even utilizing something just to promote awareness, such as using "The Safe Space Kit" could be a good first step for schools to promote responsiveness to LGBT students. Providing some supports rather than none at all can benefit LGBT youth tremendously now and in the future (Greytak, et al. 2013).[55]

OBPP (Olweus Bullying Prevention Program) Edit OBPP is an anti-bullying program designed by psychologist Dan Olweus utilized in schools in Europe, Canada and the U.S. Reductions in bullying were due to parent training, playground supervision, home-school communication, classroom rules, and training videos. Furthermore, Swearer, et al. (2010) discuss a "dosage effect" in which the more positive and consistent elements included in a program, the more the likelihood that bullying would decrease. Success in one school does not guarantee success in another because each school has its own social climate. The OBPP is effective but still needs to be analyzed further, since there are many things to consider when implementing this technique within a large school.[citation needed]

Steps To Respect Edit Steps To Respect is an anti-bullying campaign which can be beneficial in schools as well – it is a comprehensive guide for teachers, administrators, and students utilizing in class lessons and training helping schools foster positive social-emotional skills and conflict resolution. If schools are able to change peer conduct and norms, increase student communication skills, and maintain adult prevention and intervention efforts, the positive effects of their work will strengthen over time (Frey, Edstrom & Hirschstein 2005)[56] and continue to grow as each class progresses through the school system.

Make curriculum changes Edit According to Russell, S. T., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E. (2006),[57] it is imperative for educators to make subject and age appropriate lessons with LGBT issues incorporated into the curriculum on a consistent basis utilizing current events, history, literature, or social sciences. Teachers should be trained each year on new practices to employ in their classrooms and in school in general. They should be taught how to handle situations they may face with LGBT students, so that if a problem should arise, they will be confident in their own understandings of the LGBT community and know how to handle any question or situation professionally and empathetically. Russell, et al. (2006) report that state policy and government officials need to be mindful of the ever-changing culture we live in by enforcing and including material appropriate in schools to educate educators on LGBT people in the world.[57]

Burdge, H., Sinclair, K., Laub, C., Russell, S. T. (2012)[58] relate numerous lessons, which each subject area teacher can teach to enforce LGBT inclusivity and school safety. They report that lessons, which promote LGBT inclusivity, can have the greatest impact on school safety. Physical education, health, history, and social studies teachers can educate all students to have more social awareness and create a positive school climate. They continue to note that inviting parents, teachers, administrators and other key stakeholders to identify and/or participate in the development of age-appropriate LGBT-inclusive lessons that teachers can use in their classrooms is most beneficial.

Educators must continue to try new trends, constantly assessing the environment of their school. The best policies and interventions are those, which show positive growth across grade levels. Research should continue to see which programs suit the needs of different schools over a period of time. Since each school varies in many ways, it may be hard to report positive trends. One technique that works in one school may or may not work for another. Therefore, taking pieces of one technique and making it into something that molds best to each school and environment is key.[citation needed]

Australian Federal Election 2004 - Project to overhaul article from op-ed to encyclopaedic style, plus references/citations, and consultation with other Australian Electoral Scholars (of which I am one)[edit]

Australian federal election, 2004 Federal elections were held in Australia on 9 October 2004. All 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 40 seats in the 76-member Senate were up for election. The incumbent Liberal Party of Australia led by Prime Minister of Australia John Howard and coalition partner the National Party of Australia led by John Anderson defeated the opposition Australian Labor Party led by Mark Latham.

Australian federal election, 2004

← 2001 9 October 2004 2007 → All 150 seats in the House of Representatives 76 seats were needed for a majority in the House 40 (of the 76) seats in the Senate Registered 12,354,983 Turnout 94.3%

	Image-Howard2003upr.JPG	Ac.marklatham.jpg

Leader John Howard Mark Latham Party Liberal/National coalition Labor Leader since 30 January 1995 2 December 2003 Leader's seat Bennelong (NSW) Werriwa (NSW) Last election 82 seats 65 seats Seats won 87 seats 60 seats Seat change Increase5 Decrease5 Popular vote 6,179,130 5,536,002 Percentage 52.74% 47.26% Swing Increase1.79 Decrease1.79 Prime Minister before election John Howard Liberal/National coalition

Subsequent Prime Minister John Howard Liberal/National coalition

Future Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull entered parliament at this election.

Results Edit House of Representatives results Edit

States and Territories won by the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal/National Coalition. (Popular Vote)

Government (87) Coalition

    Liberal (74)
    National (12)
    CLP (1)

Opposition (60)

    Labor (60)

Crossbench (3)

    Independent (3)

The disproportionality of the lower house in the 2004 election was 8.67 according to the Gallagher Index, mainly between the Liberal and Green Parties. Main article: Full national lower house results for the 2004 Australian federal election House of Representatives (IRV) — Turnout 94.69% (CV) — Informal 5.18% Party Votes % Swing Seats Change

	Coalition	 	 	 	 	 
	Liberal Party of Australia	4,741,458	40.47	+3.39	74	+5
	National Party of Australia	690,275	5.89	+0.28	12	−1
	Country Liberal Party	39,855	0.34	+0.02	1	0
	Australian Labor Party	4,408,820	37.63	−0.21	60	−4
	Australian Greens	841,734	7.19	+2.23	0	−1
	Family First Party	235,315	2.01	+2.01	0	0
	Australian Democrats	144,832	1.24	-4.17	0	0
	One Nation Party	139,956	1.19	−3.15	0	0
	Independents	286,206	2.44	−0.27	3	0
	Other	226,239	1.93		0	0
	Total	11,714,835	 	 	150

Two-party-preferred vote

	Liberal/National Coalition	WIN	52.74	+1.79	87	+5
	Australian Labor Party	 	47.26	−1.79	60	-5

Independents: Peter Andren, Tony Windsor, Bob Katter

Popular Vote Liberal 40.47% Labor 37.63% Greens 7.19% National 5.89% Family First 2.01% Democrats 1.24% One Nation 1.19% Independents 2.44% Other 1.93% Two Party Preferred Vote Coalition 52.74% Labor 47.26% Parliament Seats Coalition 58.00% Labor 40.00% Independents 2.00% House of Representatives preference flows Edit The Nationals had candidates in 9 seats where three-cornered-contests existed, with 84.70% of preferences favouring the Liberal Party. The Greens contested all 150 electorates with preferences strongly favouring Labor (80.86%) Family First contested 109 electorates with preferences favouring the Liberal/National Coalition (66.57%) The Democrats contested 125 electorates with preferences slightly favouring Labor (58.91%) One Nation contested 77 electorates with preferences slightly favouring the Liberal/National Coalition (56.4%) Seats changing hands Edit For all seats, see Mackerras federal election pendulum, 2006. In the House of Representatives, the Coalition won eight seats from Labor: Bass (Tas), Bonner (Qld), Braddon (Tas), Greenway (NSW), Hasluck (WA), Kingston (SA), Stirling (WA) and Wakefield (SA). Labor won four seats from the Coalition: Adelaide (SA), Hindmarsh (SA), Parramatta (NSW) and Richmond (NSW). The Coalition thus had a net gain of four seats. The redistribution had also delivered them McMillan (Vic), formerly held by Christian Zahra of Labor and won by Liberal Russell Broadbent; and Bowman (Qld), formerly held by Labor's Con Sciacca and won by Liberal Andrew Laming. Labor, meanwhile, received the new seat of Bonner (Qld) and the redistributed Wakefield (SA), both of which were lost to the Liberal Party. The Labor Party regained the seat of Cunningham, which had been lost to the Greens in a by-election in 2002.

Seat Pre-2004 Swing Post-2004 Party Member Margin Margin Member Party Adelaide, SA Liberal Trish Worth 0.62 1.95 1.33 Kate Ellis Labor Bass, Tas Labor Michelle O'Byrne 2.06 4.69 2.63 Michael Ferguson Liberal Bonner, Qld Labor Hon Con Sciacca* 1.89 2.40 0.51 Ross Vasta Liberal Braddon, Tas Labor Sid Sidebottom 5.96 7.09 1.13 Mark Baker Liberal Cunningham, NSW Greens Michael Organ 2.17 12.82 10.65 Sharon Bird Labor Greenway, NSW Labor Frank Mossfield 3.11 3.69 0.58 Louise Markus Liberal Hasluck, WA Labor Sharryn Jackson 1.78 3.60 1.82 Stuart Henry Liberal Hindmarsh, SA Liberal Christine Gallus 0.96 1.02 0.06 Steve Georganas Labor Kingston, SA Labor David Cox 1.35 1.42 0.07 Kym Richardson Liberal Parramatta, NSW Liberal Ross Cameron 1.15 1.92 0.77 Julie Owens Labor Richmond, NSW National Hon Larry Anthony 1.68 1.87 0.19 Justine Elliot Labor Stirling, WA Labor Jann McFarlane 1.58 3.62 2.04 Michael Keenan Liberal Wakefield, SA Labor Martyn Evans* 1.26 1.93 0.67 David Fawcett Liberal

Con Sciacca was in fact the member for the seat of Bowman, which had become Liberal in a redistribution; he instead contested the new seat of Bonner. Martyn Evans was the member for the abolished seat of Bonython; he instead contested the seat of Wakefield.

Senate results Edit Main article: Results of the Australian federal election, 2004 (Senate) See also: Members

Government (39) Coalition

    Liberal (33)
    National (5)
    CLP (1)

Opposition (28)

    Labor (28)

Crossbench (9)

    Greens (4)
    Democrats (4)
    Family First (1)

Senate (STV GV) — 2005–08 – Turnout 94.82% (CV) — Informal 3.75% Party Votes % Swing Seats Won Continuing senators Seats Held

	Australian Labor Party	4,186,715	35.02	+0.70	16	12	28
	Liberal/National (Joint Ticket)	3,074,952	25.72	+1.85	6	-	 
	Liberal Party of Australia	2,109,978	17.65	+1.96	13	10	33
	Australian Greens	916,431	7.67	+2.73	2	2	4
	Australian Democrats	250,373	2.09	−5.16	0	4	4
	Family First Party	210,567	1.76	*	1	-	1
	One Nation	206,455	1.73	−3.81	0	-	0
	National Party of Australia	163,261	1.37	−0.55	1	4	5
	Christian Democratic Party	140,674	1.18	+0.06	0	-	0
	Liberals for Forests	107,130	0.90	+0.15	0	-	0
	Democratic Labor Party	58,042	0.49	−0.08	0	-	0
	The Fishing Party	50,356	0.42	+0.18	0	-	0
	Country Liberal Party	41,923	0.35	+0.00	1	-	1
	Help End Marijuana Prohibition	41,501	0.35	−0.20	0	-	0
	Ex-Service, Service and Veterans Party	25,277	0.21	*	0	-	0
	Citizens Electoral Council	24,663	0.21	+0.14	0	-	0
	Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party	19,156	0.16	−0.04	0	-	0
	Australian Progressive Alliance	18,856	0.16	*	0	-	0
	Progressive Labour Party	18,424	0.15	−0.50	0	-	0
	The Aged and Disability Pensioners Party	17,401	0.15	*	0	-	0
	Outdoor Recreation Party	13,822	0.12	*	0	-	0
	Socialist Alliance	13,305	0.11	*	0	-	0
	Non-Custodial Parents Party	12,207	0.10	+0.06	0	-	0
	Australians Against Further Immigration	11,508	0.10	−0.08	0	-	0
	New Country Party	11,040	0.09	*	0	-	0
	No GST Party	9,713	0.08	−0.35	0	-	0
	The Great Australians	6,984	0.06	*	0	-	0
	Republican Party of Australia	4,168	0.03	−0.06	0	-	0
	Save the ADI Site Party	3,281	0.03	*	0	-	0
	Hope Party Australia	2,938	0.02	−0.01	0	-	0
	Nuclear Disarmament Party	2,163	0.02	−0.02	0	-	0
	Other	180,385	1.51	+1.13	0	-	0
	Total	11,953,649	 	 	40	36	76

Julian McGauran later left the Nationals and joined the Liberals. Overall result Edit The Coalition parties won 46.7% of the primary vote, a gain of 3.7% over the 2001 election. The opposition Australian Labor Party polled 37.6%, a loss of 0.2 percentage points. The Australian Greens emerged as the most prominent minor party, polling 7.2%, a gain of 2.2 points. Both the Australian Democrats and One Nation had their vote greatly reduced. After a notional distribution of preferences, the Australian Electoral Commission estimated that the Coalition had polled 52.74% of the two-party-preferred vote, a gain of 1.7 points from 2001.

The Liberal Party won 74 seats, the National Party 12 seats and the Country Liberal Party (the Northern Territory branch of the Liberal Party) one seat, against the Labor opposition's 60 seats. Three independent members were re-elected. The Coalition also won 39 seats in the 76-member Senate, making the Howard Government the first government to have a majority in the Senate since 1981. The size of the government's win was unexpected: few commentators[who?] had predicted that the coalition would actually increase its majority in the House of Representatives, and almost none had foreseen its gaining a majority in the Senate.[citation needed] Even Howard had described that feat as "a big ask".[citation needed]

The election result was a triumph for Howard, who in December 2004 became Australia's second-longest serving Prime Minister, and who saw the election result as a vindication of his policies, particularly his decision to join in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The results were a setback for the Labor leader, Mark Latham, and contributed to his resignation in January 2005 after assuming the leadership from Simon Crean in 2003.[citation needed] The defeat made Labor's task more difficult: a provisional pendulum for the House of Representatives,[1] showed that Labor would need to win 16 seats to win the following election. However, Kim Beazley said that the accession of Latham to the ALP leadership, in December 2003, had rescued the party from a much heavier defeat.[2] Beazley stated that polling a year before the election indicated that the ALP would lose "25–30 seats" in the House of Representatives. Instead the party lost a net four seats in the House, a swing of 0.21 percentage points. There was also a 1.1-point swing to the ALP in the Senate. The Coalition gaining control of the Senate was enabled by a collapse in first preferences for the Australian Democrats and One Nation.

Members and Senators defeated in the election include Larry Anthony, the National Party Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, defeated in Richmond, New South Wales; former Labor minister Con Sciacca, defeated in Bonner, Queensland; Liberal Parliamentary Secretaries Trish Worth (Adelaide, South Australia) and Ross Cameron (Parramatta, New South Wales); and Democrat Senators Aden Ridgeway (the only indigenous member of the outgoing Parliament), Brian Greig and John Cherry. Liberal Senator John Tierney (New South Wales), who was dropped to number four on the Coalition Senate ticket, was also defeated.

A party worker for the Australian Labor Party hands out How-to-Vote Cards at a polling place in St Kilda, Victoria, in the Division of Melbourne Ports, on election day, 9 October 2004. Celebrity candidates Peter Garrett (Labor, Kingsford Smith, New South Wales) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal, Wentworth, New South Wales) easily won their contests. Prominent clergyman Fred Nile failed to win a Senate seat in New South Wales. The first Muslim candidate to be endorsed by a major party in Australia, Ed Husic, failed to win the seat of Greenway, New South Wales, for Labor. The former One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, failed in her bid to win a Senate seat in Queensland as an independent.

Minor parties had mixed results. The Australian Democrats polled their lowest vote since their creation in 1977, and did not retain any of the three Senate seats they were defending. The Australian Greens won their first Senate seat in Western Australia and retained the Seat they were defending in Tasmania. They did not achieve a widely-expected Senate Seat in Victoria, due to fellow progressive parties, the Australian Labor Party and The Australian Democrats, as well as some micro parties, joining with the conservative parties in a preference deal with far-right evangelist Christian party Family First, which despite a popular vote of just 1.7% received so many preferences from the unsuccessful Candidates of other parties that it eventually overtook the Greens David Risstrom's 7.4% vote and claimed that Senate Seat. As predicted, the Greens did not gain a Senate Seats in Queensland or South Australia, partly because of similar preference deals by fellow progressive parties, but also because of a traditionally lower vote in these States. Predictably, the Greens lost their first and (at the time) only Lower House seat of Cunningham, which they had gained by way of an electoral anomaly at the 2002 by-election in that Seat, which when The Liberal Party did not provide a Candidate, caused atypical voting patterns, overwhelmingly amongst voters who would normally have voted for The Liberals and did not want to vote for their traditional nemeses, The Labor Party.

The Australian Progressive Alliance leader, Senator Meg Lees, and the One Nation parliamentary leader, Senator Len Harris, lost their seats. One Nation's vote in the House of Representatives collapsed. The Christian Democratic Party, the Citizens Electoral Council, the Democratic Labor Party, the Progressive Labour Party and the Socialist Alliance all failed to make any impact. The Family First Party polled 2% of the vote nationally, and their candidate Steve Fielding won a Senate seat in Victoria.

Result Edit e • d Summary of the 9 October 2004 Parliament of Australia election results Parties Primary Votes House % House Seats House Votes Senate % Senate Seats Won Senate Total Seats Senate

	Liberal Party of Australia	4,741,458	40.5	74	2,109,978	17.7	13	33
	National Party of Australia	690,275	5.9	12	163,261	1.4	1	5

Liberal/National Party senate ticket (NSW and Vic) – – – 3,074,952 25.7 6 *

	Country Liberal Party	39,855	0.3	1	41,923	0.4	1	1
	Australian Labor Party	4,409,117	37.6	60	4,186,715	35.0	16	28
	Australian Greens	841,734	7.2	–	916,431	7.7	2	4
	Family First Party	235,315	2.0	–	210,567	1.8	1	1
	Australian Democrats	144,832	1.2	–	250,373	2.1	–	4
	One Nation Party	139,956	1.2	–	206,455	1.7	–	–
	Christian Democratic Party	72,241	0.6	–	140,674	1.2	–	–
	Other parties	108,313	0.9	–	652,320	5.5	–	–
	Independents	288,206	2.4	3	–	–	–	–

Total (turnout 94.85%) 11,715,132 100.0 150 11,953,649 100.0 40 76 Informal votes 639,851 Total votes 12,354,983 Registered voters 13,021,230

Liberal/National senators shown under their respective parties

Sources: Australian Electoral Commission, Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Handbook The Liberal and National parties run joint tickets in some states. The figures under "Seats" show the number of Senate seats won at this election. These have been added to the number of seats won in 2001 to give the total number of seats in Senate which each party will hold after 1 July 2005, when the new Senators take their seats.

The National and Liberal Parties won the fifth and sixth Senate seats in Queensland, thus giving the Coalition 39 seats and outright control of the Senate. Labor won the final Senate seats in New South Wales and South Australia, giving it 28 seats. The Greens won the final Senate seats in Western Australia and Tasmania, increasing their Senate seats from 2 to 4.

See Results of the Australian federal election, 2004

Pre-election issues Edit In the wake of the 2002 Bali Bombings and the 2001 World Trade Center attacks, the Howard government along with the Blair and Bush governments, initiated combat operations in Afghanistan and an alliance for invading Iraq, these issues divided Labor voters[citation needed] who were disproportionately anti-war,[citation needed] flipping those votes from Labor and to the Greens.[citation needed] The second issue was the ongoing and continued worsening of the Millennium Drought continued to bolster support for the Nationals water management policies of the Murray-Darling river system,[citation needed] diverting focus away from rural and inner-city community water supplies and focusing on Regional and Farmland water supplies.

The campaign Edit The Prime Minister, John Howard, announced the election at a press conference in Canberra on 29 August, after meeting the Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, at Government House.

Opening shots: "who do you trust?" Edit John Howard told the press conference that the election would be about trust.[citation needed] "Who do you trust to keep the economy strong and protect family living standards?" he asked "Who do you trust to keep interest rates low? Who do you trust to lead the fight on Australia's behalf against international terrorism?"[citation needed]

Howard, who turned 64 in July, declined to answer questions about whether he would serve a full three-year term if his government was re-elected. "I will serve as long as my party wants me to," he said.[3]

At a press conference in Sydney half an hour after Howard's announcement, Opposition Leader Mark Latham welcomed the election, saying the Howard Government had been in power too long. He said the main issue would be truth in government. "We've had too much dishonesty from the Howard Government", he said. "The election is about trust. The Government has been dishonest for too long."[4]

Labor starts ahead in national opinion polls Edit The campaign began with Labor leading in all published national opinion polls.[citation needed] On 31 August, Newspoll published in The Australian newspaper gave Labor a lead of 52% to 48% nationwide, which would translate into a comfortable win for Labor in terms of seats. Most commentators,[who?] however, expected the election to be very close, pointing out that Labor was also ahead in the polls at the comparable point of the 1998 election, which Howard won.[citation needed] Howard had also consistently out-polled Latham as preferred Prime Minister by an average of 11.7 percentage points in polls taken this year.[5]

After the first week, the Coalition draws ahead Edit After the first week of campaigning, a Newspoll conducted for News Corporation newspapers indicated that the Coalition held a lead on a two-party-preferred basis of 52% to 48% in the government's 12 most marginal held seats.[citation needed] To secure government in its own right, Labor needed to win twelve more seats than in the 2001 election.[citation needed] In the same poll, John Howard increased his lead over Mark Latham as preferred Prime Minister by four points.[citation needed] The Taverner poll conducted for The Sun-Herald newspaper revealed that younger voters were more likely to support Labor, with 41% of those aged 18 to 24 supporting Labor, compared with 36% who support the Coalition.[citation needed]

A terrorist attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta marks the second week Edit On 9 September, during the second week of campaigning the election was rocked by a terrorist attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia.[citation needed] John Howard expressed his "utter dismay at this event" and dispatched Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to Jakarta to assist in the investigation.[citation needed] Mark Latham committed the Labor party's "full support to all efforts by the Australian and Indonesian governments to ensure that happens".[citation needed] The parties reached an agreement that campaigning would cease for 10 September out of respect for the victims of this attack and that this would be in addition to the cessation of campaigning already agreed upon for 11 September in remembrance of the terrorist attacks in 2001. Some argue[who?] that this attack increased the Coalition's chances of victory because it re-focused the election on the issue of national security, which was generally considered to be a Coalition strength.[citation needed]

The leaders debate and the worm turns in Latham's favour Edit A debate between John Howard and Mark Latham was televised commercial-free on the Nine Network at 7:30pm on Sunday 12 September. In a change from previous election debates, which involved a single moderator, the leaders were questioned by a five-member panel representing each of the major media groups in Australia. There was a representative from commercial television (Laurie Oakes), the ABC (Jim Middleton), News Limited (Malcolm Farr), John Fairfax Holdings (Michelle Grattan) and radio (Neil Mitchell). After an opening address, Howard and Latham responded to questions posed by the panel and had the opportunity to make a closing statement. The Nine Network permitted other television organisations to transmit the feed, but only the ABC chose to.[citation needed]

The debate was followed (only on the Nine Network) by an analysis of the leaders' performance by the "worm". The worm works by analysing the approval or disapproval of a select group of undecided voters to each statement that a leader makes. Throughout the debate, according to the worm, Latham performed strongly and Howard performed poorly.[citation needed] A final poll of the focus group found that 67% of the focus group believed that Latham won the debate and that 33% of the focus group believed that Howard won.[citation needed] Major media outlets generally agreed that Latham had won the debate, although they pointed out that with no further debates scheduled and nearly four weeks of the campaign remaining, Latham's gain in the momentum from the debate was unlikely to be decisive.[citation needed] Political commentators[who?] noted that the 2001 election debate, between Howard and then opposition leader Kim Beazley, gave the same worm results yet Labor still lost that election.[citation needed]

Officials of the Australian Electoral Commission conduct a blind ballot to determine the order of candidates on the House of Representatives ballot paper in the Division of Melbourne Ports, 17 September 2004 At the midpoint, it is too close to call Edit By the midpoint of the campaign, after Labor had released its policies on taxation and education, polls showed that the election was still too close to call. The Newspoll in The Australian, showed (21 September) Labor leading with 52.5% of the two-party-preferred vote. The ACNielsen poll published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age showed the Coalition ahead on 52%. The Morgan poll, which has a poor recent record of predicting federal elections, showed Labor ahead with 53% on the weekend of 18–19 September. A Galaxy Poll in the Melbourne Herald Sun showed the Coalition ahead with 51%, but showed Labor gaining ground.

Despite Latham's strong performance in the debate, most political commentators[who?] argued that he had not gained a clear advantage over Howard. They pointed to anomalies in Labor's tax policy and the controversy surrounding Labor's policy of reducing government funding to some non-government schools as issues which Howard was successfully exploiting.[citation needed]

John Howard and John Anderson launched the Coalition election campaign at a joint function in Brisbane on 26 September. Howard's policy speech can be read at the Liberal Party website.[6] Anderson's policy speech can be read at the National Party website.[7]

Mark Latham's policy speech was delivered, also in Brisbane, on 29 September.

Contradictory polls in the fourth week Edit During the fourth week of the campaign contradictory polls continued to appear. The ACNielsen poll published in The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on 25 September showed the Coalition ahead with 54%, which would translate into a large majority for the government. The Newspoll in The Australian on 28 September showed Labor ahead with 52%, which would give Labor a comfortable majority.

Tasmanian forests erupt as the main issue during the last week Edit In the last days of the campaign the environment policies regarding the logging of Tasmania's old-growth forests were released by both major parties, but too late for the Greens to adjust their preference flows on how-to-vote cards in most electorates as the majority were already printed.[citation needed] In the game of "cat and mouse" on Tasmanian forest policy between Mark Latham and John Howard, Latham eventually lost out when Dick Adams (Labor member for the Tasmanian seat of Lyons), Tasmanian Labor Premier Paul Lennon and CFMEU's Tasmanian secretary Scott McLean all attacked Latham's forest policy.[citation needed] At a timber workers' rally on the day Labor's forestry policy was announced, Scott McLean asked those gathered to pass a resolution of no confidence in Mr Latham's ability to lead the country.[8] Michael O'Connor, assistant national secretary of the CFMEU said the Coalition's forest policy represented a much better deal for his members than Labor's policy.[9] Australian Labor Party national president Carmen Lawrence later said that "Labor has only itself to blame for the backlash over its forestry policy" and that it was a strategic mistake to release the policy so late in the election campaign. She stated that she was disappointed in criticism from within the ALP and union movement, and that the party did not leave itself enough time to sell the package.[10]

Treasury and the Department of Finance reported on the validity of Labor's costings of their promises. They claimed to identify a different flaw to that identified by Liberal Treasurer Costello, but overall Labor was satisfied with the report.[citation needed]

The Handshake Edit On the morning of 8 October, the day before the election, a television crew filmed Latham and Howard shaking hands as they crossed paths outside an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio studio in Sydney. The footage showed Latham appearing to draw Howard towards him and tower over his shorter opponent. The incident received wide media coverage and, while Latham claimed to have been attempting to get revenge for Howard squeezing his wife's hand too hard at a press function, it was variously reported as being "aggressive", "bullying" and "intimidating" on the part of Latham.[citation needed] The Liberal Party campaign director, Brian Loughnane, later said this incident generated more feedback to Liberal headquarters than anything else during the six-week campaign, and that it "brought together all the doubts and hesitations that people had about Mark Latham".[citation needed] Latham disputes the impact of this incident, however, having described it as a "Tory gee-up: we got close to each other, sure, but otherwise it was a regulation man's handshake. It's silly to say it cost us votes – my numbers spiked in the last night of our polling." (Latham Diaries, p. 369) According to Latham's account of events, Latham came in close to Howard for the handshake to prevent Howard shaking with his arm rather than his wrist.

Final opinion polls are not conclusive Edit The final opinion polls continued to be somewhat contradictory, with Newspoll showing a 50–50 tie and the Fairfax papers reporting 54–46 to the Coalition. Most Australian major daily newspaper editorials backed a return of the Howard government, with the notable exceptions of The Sydney Morning Herald, which backed neither party, and The Canberra Times, which backed Labor.[11]

Preference deals Edit As in all Australian elections, the flow of preferences from minor parties can be crucial in determining the final outcome. The close of nominations was followed by a period of bargaining among the parties. Howard made a pitch for the preferences of the Australian Greens by appearing to offer concessions on the issue of logging in old-growth forests in Tasmania, and the Coalition directed its preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor in the Senate, but the Greens nevertheless decided to allocate preferences to Labor in most electorates. In exchange, Labor agreed to direct its preferences in the Senate to the Greens ahead of the Democrats (but critically, not ahead of other minor parties), increasing the chances that the Greens would displace Australian Democrats Senators in New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia.

The Democrats in turn did a preference deal with the Family First Party, which angered some Democrats supporters who viewed Family First's policies as incompatible with the Democrats'.

The effect of preference deals on Senate outcomes Edit In Victoria, Family First, the Christian Democrats and the DLP allocated their senate preferences to Labor, to help ensure the re-election of the number three Labor Senate candidate, Jacinta Collins, a Catholic who has conservative views on some social issues such as abortion. In exchange, Labor gave its Senate preferences in Victoria to Family First ahead of the Greens, expecting Family First to be eliminated before these preferences were distributed. In the event, however, Labor and Democrat preferences helped Family First's Steve Fielding beat the Green's David Risstrom to win the last Victorian Senate seat[12] and become Family First's first Federal parliamentarian. This outcome generated some controversy and highlighted a lack of transparency in preference deals. Family First were elected in Victoria after receiving 1.88% of the vote, even though the Greens had the largest minor party share of the vote with 8.8%. In Australia, 95% of voters vote "above the line" in the Senate.[13] Many "above the line" voters do not access preference allocation listings, although they are available in polling booths and on the AEC website, so they are therefore unaware of where their vote may go. The end result was one Family First, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Victoria.

In Tasmania, Family First and the Democrats also directed their Senate preferences to Labor, apparently to preclude the possibility of the Liberals winning a majority in the Senate and thus reducing the influence of the minor parties. The Australian Greens' Christine Milne appeared at risk of losing her Senate seat to a Family First candidate shortly after election night, despite nearly obtaining the full required quota of primary votes. However, strong performance on postal and prepoll votes improved Milne's position. It was only the high incidence of "below the line" voting in Tasmania that negated the effect of the preference swap deal between Labor and Family First.[14] The end result was one Green, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Tasmania.

In New South Wales, Democrat preferences flowing to Labor rather than the Greens were instrumental in Labor's winning of the last Senate seat. Had Democrat preferences flown to the Greens rather than Liberals for Forests and the Christian Democrats, then the final vacancy would have been won by the Greens' John Kaye. The scale of Glenn Druery's (of the Liberals for Forests party) preference deals was revealed by the large number of ticket votes distributed when he was eliminated from the count. He gained preferences from a wide range of minor parties such as the Ex-Service Service and Veterans Party, the Outdoor Recreation Party, and the Non-Custodial Parents Party. Liberals for Forests also gained the preferences of two leftish parties – the Progressive Labour Party and the HEMP Party. When Druery was eventually excluded, these preferences flowed to the Greens, but the Greens would rather have received the preferences earlier in the count. In the end, three Liberal/National Senators and three Labor Senators were elected in New South Wales.[15]

In Western Australia, the Greens' Rachel Siewert was elected to the final vacancy after the final Labor candidate was excluded. This was a gain for the Greens at the expense of the Democrats Brian Greig. While the Democrats had done a preference swap with Family First, the deal in Western Australia did not include the Christian Democrats. As a result, when the Australian Democrats were excluded from the count, their preferences flowed to the Greens, putting them on track for the final vacancy.[16] The end result was one Green, three Liberal and two Labor Senators elected in Western Australia.

In South Australia, the Australian Democrats negotiated a crucial preference swap with Family First that prevented the Greens winning the final vacancy. If the Democrats had polled better, they would have collected Family First and Liberal preferences and won the final vacancy. Former Democrat Leader Meg Lees also contested the Senate in South Australia, but was eliminated late in the count. However, Lees did have some impact on the outcome, as there were large numbers of below the line preferences for both the Progressive Alliance (as well as One Nation) which were widely spread rather than flowing to the Democrats. When the Democrats were excluded, preferences flowed to Family First which prevented the Greens' Brian Noone passing the third Labor candidate. This resulted in a seat that could otherwise have been won by the Greens instead being won by Labor on Green preferences. The flow of One Nation preferences to Labor made it impossible for either Family First or the Liberal Party to win the final vacancy. Labor's Dana Wortley was elected to the final vacancy.[17] The end result in South Australia was split 3 Liberal, 3 Labor.

In Queensland, Pauline Hanson attracted 38,000 below the line votes and pulled away from One Nation. Preferences from the Fishing Party kept the National Party's Barnaby Joyce ahead of Family First and Pauline Hanson. Joyce then unexpectedly won the fifth vacancy ahead of the Liberal Party. The sixth and last vacancy was then won by Liberal Russell Trood.[18] The final outcome was 1 National, 3 Liberals and 2 Labor.

The election of both Barnaby Joyce and Russell Trood to the Senate in Queensland resulted in the Coalition gaining control of the Senate and was confirmed by the National Party's Senate Leader Ron Boswell's in a televised telephone call to Prime Minister John Howard.[19] This result was not widely predicted prior to the election.

The effect of preference deals on House of Representatives and national outcomes Edit Despite constant media attention on preference deals, and a widely held belief that the two party preferred result for the election would be close, the Newspoll figures during the three months prior to the election showed little alteration in the first preference margin between the parties, nor was there any evidence of any voter volatility. The figures suggested, then, that as the Coalition's first preference vote was healthy, the most likely result was a Government victory. This was born out in the election results when the Liberal first preference vote of 40.5 per cent was 3.4 percentage points higher than in 2001, while Labor's first-preference vote of 37.6 per cent was its lowest since the elections of 1931 and 1934.[20] Preference flows from minor parties are much more likely to affect an election outcome when the two major parties are close. The collapse of Labor's primary vote therefore negated this effect, even though 61 out of 150 House of Representatives seats were decided on preferences.[21]

The national outcome of minor party preference distributions (in order of number primary votes received) is summarised in the following table:[22]

Minor party Total votes % to Liberal/National Coalition % to Labor Christian Democratic Party 72,241 74.63 25.37 Citizens Electoral Council 42,349 47.83 52.17 Socialist Alliance 14,155 25.55 74.45 New Country Party 9,439 59.16 40.84 liberals for forests 8,165 60.18 39.82 No GST 7,802 38.11 61.89 Ex-Service, Service and Veterans Party 4,369 52.69 47.31 Progressive Labour Party 3,775 19.36 80.64 Outdoor Recreation Party 3,505 44.37 55.63 Save the ADI Site Party 3,490 33.12 66.88 The Great Australians 2,824 61.47 38.53 The Fishing Party 2,516 45.15 54.85 Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party 2,007 52.96 47.04 Democratic Labor Party 1,372 58.53 41.47 Non-Custodial Parents Party 1,132 26.86 73.14 HEMP 787 41.93 58.07 Nuclear Disarmament Party 341 20.82 79.18 Aged and Disability Pensioners Party 285 45.96 54.04 Party leaders Edit John Howard had been an MP since 1974, leader of the Liberal Party since 1995 (he was previously leader from 1985 to 1989), and Prime Minister since March 1996. He turned 65 in July 2004, and is more than 20 years older than Mark Latham. Howard is by far the most experienced politician in Australian federal politics and is considered a master of political strategy, a reputation which was enhanced during the 2004 campaign. Although most commentators agreed that he did not perform well in the debate with Latham, his dogged campaigning on interest rates, economic certainty and national security was effective in persuading voters in marginal seats to stick with the Coalition. John Anderson had been an MP since 1988 and leader of the National Party and Deputy Prime Minister since 1999. Although talented and personable, he was unable to stem the long-term decline in the Nationals' rural electoral base. During 2003 he considered retiring from Parliament at this election, but was persuaded not to. Despite his personal standing, the Nationals lost another seat (Richmond) and struggled to win a Senate spot in Queensland. Anderson stepped down as leader in July 2005. Mark Latham had been an MP since 1994 and was elected leader of the Australian Labor Party in December 2003. Latham initially made a good impression, but a series of controversies during 2004 caused much criticism of his alleged inconsistency and volatility. His campaign was aggressive and colourful, with a series of bold policy announcements late in the campaign. This galvanised Labor's base but many commentators felt that Latham's policies and personality alienated middle-class voters. In retrospect Labor's forests policy was a major miscalculation, costing two seats in Tasmania. Latham also failed to effectively counter Howard's campaign on interest rates. Latham resigned for health reasons in January 2005 from both his position as Leader of the Opposition and as Member for Werriwa in the House of Representatives. Andrew Bartlett had been a Senator since 1997 and leader of the Australian Democrats since 2002 when Natasha Stott Despoja stood down from the position. The efforts to revive the Democrats' public support were unsuccessful. A widely publicised incident in December 2003 where he confronted Liberal Senator Jeannie Ferris while exiting the Senate chamber did not help these efforts. The Democrats' election result in 2004 was the worst in the party's history to that time. He chose not to recontest the leadership after that election, and Senator Lyn Allison took on the leadership role. Bob Brown had been a Senator and the informal leader of the Australian Greens since 1996. By opposing Australia's participation in the Iraq War he established himself as the most prominent figure of the Australian left. But media predictions that the Greens would greatly increase their vote and win a Senate seat in every state, or even win House seats, were not realised. Although the Greens took some votes from the Democrats, many flowed to other parties and the predicted big inroads into Labor's base vote did not occur. Disclosure Edit Dates for financial disclosure for the 2004 Federal election were specified by the Australian Electoral Commission. Broadcasters and publishers had to lodge their returns by 6 December, while candidates and Senate groups needed to lodge by 24 January 2005. This information was made available for public scrutiny on 28 March 2005.

See also Edit Results of the Australian legislative election, 2004 Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004 Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 2004–2007 Members of the Australian Senate, 2005–2008 References Edit ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20060213003502/http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/2004/pendulum2004.txt ^ "Risky strategy ends in disaster for Labor – Election 2004". www.smh.com.au. 10 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ See full report and transcript of Howard's press conference. Archived 7 January 2006 at the Wayback Machine. ^ See full report of Latham's press conference. Archived 20 August 2008 at the Wayback Machine. ^ "Newspoll archive since 1987". Polling.newspoll.com.au.tmp.anchor.net.au. Retrieved 2016-07-30. ^ [1] Archived 29 September 2004 at the Wayback Machine. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20050317175549/http://www.nationals.org.au/downloads/DPM%20Speech_from_Coalition_Campaign_Launch_2004.pdf ^ "Union official may be dumped in election fallout. 14/10/2004. ABC News Online". abc.net.au. 14 October 2004. Archived from the original on 15 February 2009. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Howard trades trees for jobs – Election 2004". www.theage.com.au. 7 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Forestry policy too rushed, Labor president says. 12/10/2004. ABC News Online". Abc.net.au. 12 October 2004. Archived from the original on 23 November 2007. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Article | ninemsn news". News.ninemsn.com.au. 13 September 2009. Archived from the original on 21 October 2007. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "How party preferences picked Family First – Election 2004". www.theage.com.au. 11 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Federal Election 2004. How Senate Voting Works. Antony Green's Election Guide. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. 22 September 2004. Archived from the original on 11 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Above or below the line? Managing preference votes – On Line Opinion – 20/4/2005". On Line Opinion. 13 April 2005. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "2004 Federal Election. Senate – NSW Results. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. Archived from the original on 20 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "2004 Federal Election. Senate – WA Results. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "2004 Federal Election. Senate – SA Results. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. Archived from the original on 20 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "2004 Federal Election. Senate – QLD Results. Australian Broadcasting Corporation". ABC. Archived from the original on 21 April 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Lateline – 28/10/2004: Coalition gains Senate control". Abc.net.au. 28 October 2004. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Commonwealth Election 2004". Aph.gov.au. Archived from the original on 23 October 2009. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Seats Decided on Preferences". Results.aec.gov.au. 9 November 2005. Retrieved 2010-05-24. ^ "Preference flows at the 2004 House of Representatives election". Aph.gov.au. Archived from the original on 9 May 2010. Retrieved 2010-05-24. Bibliography Edit University of WA election results in Australia since 1890 AEC 2PP vote AustralianPolitics.com election details Australian Idol beats election debate (13 September 2004). The Age. Family First weighs in on key issues (11 October 2004). The Sydney Morning Herald. ALP hurt by forests fire (11 October 2004). The Age Howard trades trees for jobs (7 October 2004). The Age Union official may be dumped in election fallout (14 October 2004). ABC News Online. Forestry policy too rushed, Labor president says (12 October 2004). ABC News Online. How party preferences picked Family First – Election 2004, (11 October 2004). The Age. External links Edit Wikimedia Commons has media related to Australian federal election, 2004. Electoral sites The ABC's 2004 Federal Election Site ABC News Election Summary, by elections analyst Antony Green "The Mackerras Pendulum" Malcolm Mackerras Adam Carr's Election Archive Australian Electoral Commission website All the candidates and Senate preferences AEC Virtual Tally Room Party sites Australian Labor Party website Liberal Party website The Nationals website Australian Democrats website Family First Party website Australian Greens website Socialist Alliance website Citizens Electoral Council website Country Liberal Party website Talk Charlie Sanders (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Above is the entire article intended for overhaul from what is IMO an op-ed style to a more-appropriate encyclopaedic style incl. refs/citations and consultation with other experts in the field of Australian Electoral Science.

My intention is to use this Discussion as a sandbox of sorts, where individual sections of the article can be copied, edited, and re-pasted as a reply (by anyone!) and then if there are no objections that section can be edited into the original article UNDER THEIR VERY NOSES!!! uhhh I mean… SQUIRREL If people have overhauled entire articles before and have a waaaaay better method of doing this, please let me know… the sooner the better? :D Oh, and if you have experience or credibility in this topic, please let us all know about it! Or, in fact, if you DON'T have any credibility in this area, bugger it, tell us about that, too! In fact, hi! I'm Charlie! Who are YOU, and would you like a cuppa? Charlie Sanders (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC) Charlie Sanders (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption of abovementioned projects?[edit]

I feel sad to have not gone through with my threats to overhaul the articles mentioned above (and another one I mentioned on its own talk page but didn't re-post here), so, if anyone wants to read what I had to say on the mattress, I'm leaving my comments here for posterior. ;) Charlie Sanders (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]