Talk:Candidates of the 1903 Australian federal election

	Australia portal Candidates of the 1903 Australian federal election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Northern Melbourne - Samuel Painter[edit]

Copying and adding a little to my comments at the 1906 talk page: "a Protectionist up to the hilt", "the Labor Party have nothing whatever to do with Mr. Painter's candidature", he calls himself protectionist in this article and clashes with a Labour heckler. Some of the newspapers designate him as a free trader in their election results tables, just to make life harder than it needs to be.... In any case, I'm confident that Hughes and Graham (who call him Labour) have this one wrong. I've changed him to Independent; perhaps Ind Prot would be better. Pappubahry (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In view of that first article, I'd go with Ind Prot. Frickeg (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]