text:
Hao Wang (academic)

Hao Wang (20 May 1921 – 13 May 1995) was a Chinese-American logician, philosopher, mathematician, and commentator on Kurt Gödel.

Biography
Born in Jinan, Shandong, in the Republic of China (today in the People's Republic of China), Wang received his early education in China. He obtained a BSc degree in mathematics from the National Southwestern Associated University in 1943 and an M.A. in philosophy from Tsinghua University in 1945, where his teachers included Feng Youlan and Jin Yuelin, after which he moved to the United States for further graduate studies. He studied logic under W.V. Quine at Harvard University, culminating in a Ph.D. in 1948. He was appointed to an assistant professorship at Harvard the same year.

During the early 1950s, Wang studied with Paul Bernays in Zürich. In 1956, he was appointed Reader in the Philosophy of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. In 1959, Wang wrote on an IBM 704 computer a program that in only 9 minutes mechanically proved several hundred mathematical logic theorems in Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. In 1961, he was appointed Gordon McKay Professor of Mathematical Logic and Applied Mathematics at Harvard. From 1967 until 1991, he headed the logic research group at Rockefeller University in New York City, where he was professor of logic. In 1972, Wang joined in a group of Chinese American scientists led by Chih-Kung Jen as the first such delegation from the U.S. to the People's Republic of China.

One of Wang's most important contributions was the Wang tile. He showed that any Turing machine can be turned into a set of Wang tiles. The domino problem is to find an algorithm that uses a set of Wang tiles to tile the plane. The first noted example of aperiodic tiling is a set of Wang tiles, whose nonexistence Wang had once conjectured, discovered by his student Robert Berger in 1966. Wang also had a significant influence on theory of computational complexity.

A philosopher in his own right, Wang also developed a penetrating interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein's later philosophy of mathematics, which he called "anthropologism." Later he broadened this reading in the foundations of mathematics. He chronicled Kurt Gödel's philosophical ideas and authored several books on the subject, thereby providing contemporary scholars many insights elucidating Gödel's later philosophical thought. He saw his own philosophy of "substantial factualism" as a middle ground that includes both abstract theoretical formulations and the ordinary language of everyday discourse.

In 1983 he was presented with the first Milestone Prize for Automated Theorem-Proving, sponsored by the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.

On May 13, 1995, Wang died at New York Hospital one week from his 74th birthday. According to his wife Hanne Tierney, Wang's cause of death was from lymphoma. In addition to Tierney, Wang was survived by a daughter and two sons.

Books

 * Les Systèmes axiomatiques de la Théorie des Ensembles, Gauthier-Villars; Paris, 1953. [Wang 1953a, with Robert McNaughton].
 * A Survey of Mathematical Logic. Peking:  Science Press; Amsterdam:  North-Holland, 1962. [Wang 1962a].
 * From Mathematics to Philosophy. London:  Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974.  [Wang 1974a].
 * Popular Lectures on Mathematical Logic. New York:  Van Nostrand, 1981.  [Wang 1981a].  ISBN 0-486-67632-3. Dover reprint 2014. ISBN 9780486676326
 * Beyond Analytic Philosophy: Doing Justice to What We Know. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  MIT Press, 1985.  [Wang 1985a].  ISBN 0-262-23124-7.
 * Reflections on Kurt Gödel. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  MIT Press, 1987.  [Wang 1987a].  ISBN 0-262-73087-1.
 * Computation, Logic, Philosophy. A Collection of Essays. Beijing:  Science Press; Dordrecht:  Kluwer Academic, 1990.  [Wang 1990a].  ISBN 7-03000211-3.
 * A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy. Cambridge, Massachusetts:  MIT Press, 1996.  [Wang 1996a].  ISBN 0-262-23189-1.

title: Hao Wang (academic)


text: Template:Judges

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Template:Judges


text:
Slieve Croob

Slieve Croob is a mountain with a height of 534 m in the middle of County Down, Northern Ireland. It is the heart of a mountainous area, the Dromara Hills, north of the Mourne Mountains. It is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is the source of the River Lagan. There is a small road to the summit, where there is an ancient burial cairn and several transmitter stations with radio masts. It has wide views over all of County Down and further afield. The Dromara Hills also includes Slievenisky, Cratlieve, Slievegarran and Slievenaboley.

Slieve Croob may have been the mountain named Brí Erigi or Brí Airige in medieval writings. The cairn on its summit is believed to be the remains of an ancient burial mound, possibly of a passage tomb like the one on Slieve Gullion. In the 19th century it was recorded to be 77 yd around and 18 yd in "conical height", with forty-two "pillar stones" or kerbstones around the edge. The cairn would have had a well-defined shape when it was built. Still, over time it has slipped and been damaged by visitors. Irish folklore holds that it is bad luck to damage such cairns. Some of its stones have been piled into smaller cairns on top of it, which led to the summit being nicknamed 'The Twelve Cairns'. Traditionally, people would gather on the summit at Lughnasadh where they would add a stone to one of the cairns. They would collect and eat bilberries and there would be folk music, dancing and games.

Local people still climb the mountain on the first Sunday in August (referred to as Cairn Sunday or Blaeberry Sunday), and carry a stone up the mountain to help bury the twelve Kings, who are said to be buried at the top.

Legannany Dolmen sits on the southern slopes of Slieve Croob near the village of Leitrim.

title: Slieve Croob


text:
Beebe Plain, Vermont

Beebe Plain is an unincorporated community in the town of Derby in Orleans County, Vermont, United States, which extends into the municipality of Stanstead, Quebec, Canada. The village is divided by the Canada–United States border between Canada and the United States; the Canadian portion of Beebe Plain had the status of an incorporated municipality in its own right until 1995.

Geography
The international border runs up the middle of Canusa Street (Quebec Route 247). Local legend claims that a group of rather drunken surveyors, when given the task of determining the United States-Canada border line in the region (nominally at 45.00°N), decided to place the border right through the center of the village along what is now Canusa Street.

Beebe Plain is part of a group of nearby border villages which includes Derby Line, Vermont and Stanstead, Quebec. Beebe Plain is located near Lake Memphremagog between Newport and Magog.

Industry
Beebe granite or "Stanstead Grey Granite" is famous for its use in architectural design. The production of granite from the region may well be the largest industry, with much of the stone being used in the construction of tombstones and memorials.

History
The village was founded circa 1798 by Thomas B. Beebe b. 1776 in Windsor, Vermont.

Features
The former Massawippi Valley Railway line once joined Lennoxville, Quebec through a border crossing at Beebe Plain to Newport, Vermont. That line was abandoned and removed by the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1989–1991. Portions of the former right-of-way remain open for recreational use:
 * Beebe Plain, Vermont to Waterfront Park (Main St, US 5) Newport as the Newport Bike Path.
 * Beebe Plain, Québec to Ayer's Cliff, a 19 km bicycle and pedestrian trail, le sentier nature Tomifobia.
 * Beebe Junction, Québec to Stanstead village (a former spur), as the Piste Cyclable de Stanstead
 * a segment from North Hatley to Lennoxville, Quebec

The section between Beebe's rue Principale (Québec Route 247) and North Derby Road (US) is no longer open, forcing cyclists onto Beebe's main street. A section between Ayer's Cliff and North Hatley is also no longer open.

title: Beebe Plain, Vermont


text:
Ham, Wiltshire

Ham is a small village and civil parish in Wiltshire, England. The parish borders the county of Berkshire, and the village lies about 3+1/4 mi south of the Berkshire town of Hungerford.

Ham Hill is a biological Site of Special Scientific Interest.

History
Ham is first mentioned in a charter of 931, in which King Æthelstan granted land to his thegn Wulfgar. The modern boundaries of Ham parish are little changed from those defined in clauses attached to the charter. Wulfgar willed the estate to his wife and then to the Old Minster, Winchester.

The Domesday book of 1086 recorded a settlement of twenty households at Hame, on land held by the Bishop of Winchester. In the 13th century, Ham was considered to be part of Savernake Forest. By 1284 the estate was assigned to St. Swithun's Priory, Winchester, and continued to support the monks until the Dissolution. In 1541 it was granted to the chapter of Winchester Cathedral, who retained ownership until the manor and land were sold in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Manor House, west of the church, is from the 17th century with changes and additions in the late 18th and 19th. It is a Grade II* listed building. Dove's House, northwest of the village green, is early 18th and also Grade II* listed. Ham Spray House, just east of Ham village at is c. 1830. An Ordnance Survey map published in 1961 shows the house and outbuildings standing in parkland; today, large agricultural buildings are immediately north of the house.

A National School was built opposite the Crown and Anchor in 1874, replacing a small schoolroom which was attended by 61 pupils on return day in 1871. The number of children fell during the 20th century but increased on the closure of the Buttermere school in 1944. By 1980 there were only 17 pupils and the school was closed.

Parish church

A church at Ham was recorded in 1172. The current All Saints' Church dates from the 13th century and has a 14th-century tower. Restoration during the 18th century saw the tower refaced and a north porch added; inside a west gallery was inserted, lit by a dormer window on each side. The interior is largely from the 18th century, the church having escaped Victorian restoration except for minor works in 1849.

The building was designated as Grade I listed in 1986. The benefice was united in 1933 with Buttermere, and in 1956 with Shalbourne. Today the parish forms part of the Savernake team ministry.

Local government
Ham has an elected parish council. It falls within the area of the Wiltshire Council unitary authority which is responsible for almost all aspects of local government.

Notable people
Lytton Strachey and Ralph Partridge, members of the Bloomsbury Group, bought Ham Spray House for £2,300 and moved there in 1924. Several of that group and other writers and artists spent time there until Ralph died in 1960, including:
 * Dora Carrington (1893–1932), painter and decorative artist
 * Frances Partridge (1900–2004), writer and diarist
 * Lytton Strachey (1880–1932), writer and biographer
 * Stephen Tomlin (1901–1937), artist
 * Henrietta Bingham (1901–1958), American journalist, newspaper executive and horse breeder

Amenities
Ham has a village hall and a pub, the Crown and Anchor.

title: Ham, Wiltshire


text:
Talk:Jephthah

Spelling: why Jephtha?
Why is this page "Jephtha" and not "Jephthah"? Google return more results for the latter, which is also found in Dictionry.com. -- Itai 00:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "with an h" spelling is the KJV spelling. Perhaps the spelling without is simply more correct. God, contrary to some opinions, did not dictate the text of the KJV (as he did the Book of Mormon) .

--In response to the nonsense posted by , God did not dictate any book, especially the Book of Mormon, which is riddled with unfulfilled prophecies and numerous historical and geographical inaccuracies. The name Jephthah is simply an English rendering of the Hebrew name "Yiftakh", which ends in a pronounced velar fricative. Spelling the name Jephthah without an "h" is incorrect and reveals a lack of understanding of where the name comes from and what it means.. [User 68.226.228.6]

 * Actually, there has been a ton of prophecies that have been fulfilled, and there exists a very plausible geography of the Book of Mormon, and the alleged inaccuracies have been answered by scholars. Ever read them? Don't let secular dogmatism dominate your mind.173.10.19.46 (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 * My NASB also uses the spelling of his name with an 'h'. The article itself only seems to use the spelling Jephthah, not Jephtha.  I think either the article should reflect the title, or the title should be changed.  It would seem, regardless, that Jephthah is more common than Jephtha. 76.48.50.127 16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most commentators say killing of daughter did not take place
See: http://www.kby.org/torah/article.cfm?articleid=1069

"most [Jewish, Observant, Classical] Biblical commentators (Radak, Ralbag, Abarbanel, Malbim, Metzudot) is that, "He carried out with her his vow" does not mean an actual sacrifice, but rather that he set her aside for the service of Hashem. (The Abarbanel even points out that this is the source for the Christian practice regarding the seclusion of the monks.)"

If someone would please reference those commentators for this article to give it a balanced view. There are many metaphors and expressions in the Hebrew Bible that are not meant to be taken literally or translated in modern terms. In addition, other characters are offered for service to the temple (Samuel / Shmuel), and are not killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.3.93 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC) ori

This is not the historical view. Josephus and Augustine both admitted it was a ritual sacrifice, and condemned him for it. The 'virgin' theory only arose for apologetic purposes alone.
 * The word used in the story of Jephthah is 'Olah (עולה), which as a noun means "burnt offering" (sacrifice) in Biblical Hebrew. It is never used to denote "service in the temple", and moreover there is no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for a nun-like vow of perpetual celibacy. The commentaries of the above rabbis on this subject are known to have been influenced by the situation in their European Christian surroundings (e.g. Spain, France), in which girls could make vows of celibacy and become nuns. But this has never existed in Judaism.
 * Jephthah's daughter does not go off to "bewail her virginity" because she is about to take a vow of perpetual celibacy (for which she would have her entire life to bewail), but because she is about to die a virgin.
 * Those who are trying to sugarcoat the Biblical story of Jepthah seem to be missing the point. The Torah explicitly prohibits sacrificing one's offspring (Deut. 18:10, Jer. 7:31).
 * Nevertheless, it is explicitly acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible that at times Israelites did offer up their children as sacrifices, in direct contravention to God's prohibition (Jeremiah 7:30-31):
 * "For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind."
 * Moreover, the Biblical text states that the period of the Judges (in which Jephthah lived) was a period of lawlessness (Judges 17:6, 21:25).
 * "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
 * It is against this backdrop that Jephthah's rash vow and actions are to be understood.
 * JD (talk, 27 March 2014)
 * JD (talk, 27 March 2014)

More detail
A quick scan of the Book of Judges suggests that this article is lacking the main information about Jephtha, instead concentrating on one curious incident and exploring that: it's very interesting, but the Biblical account suggests he was famous for many other things. Also, he is mentioned very briefly in the New Testament's Letter to the Hebrews, 11:32.

Can someone with more time add the relevant information, and rearrange the article so it doesn't just talk about him "killing" his daughter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.1.167.69 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

42,000 Ephraimites killed?
Anyone able to corroborate this? I always understood that the Gileadites killed "forty and two thousand" Ephraimites (as per the King James Version). This, given the size of communities in those days, makes more sense. "Forty and two thousand" is 2,040. 42,000 would have been most of the entire population of Judea at that time, I would imagine.

Any thoughts? Jfbcubed 20:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a failure to comprehend Jacobean English; if you have any real qualms, consult a more recent translation, but "forty and two thousand" is 42,000 just as "forty and two years' would be 42 years. (The figure is likely to be unhistoric, just as Herodotus' figures are; but this is what is meant.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this discussion was to move this article --Lox (t,c) 11:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting move from Jephtha to Jephthah, per consistent use of latter spelling at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011%20 and other editions.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See previous discussion above, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Jephthah is certainly more common, and almost certainly more widely understood. The difference is between translations chiefly from the Hebrew, which use Jephthah, and translations from the Vulgate, in Latin, which use Jephtha because a final h is impossible in Latin and so avoided in loan words. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Support --Java7837 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

✅ Neıl ☎  14:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple weaknesses
This is a great little article, however I have some comments.

First, it needs to cite the references it is drawn from, and to do so properly. Can you guys start supplying those? I'm no wikipedia expert...but know this is needed. I don't jump to the extreme some do and say "uncited, delete everything uncited!", but say "provide the sources and start integrating the citations"!

Second, could it be more specific? For instance, it says that it was widely held among the "Fathers" (I don't really like that label, by the way) that this was a typology. Wacky, I think, but it would be nice to know the specifics on this, or have a link to the source to check this out (as well as other details). For instance, Josephus is quoted...but none of the matter needed to check Him on this is available: not good!

Third, I'm glad there was a guy who understood the proper spelling (with an "h" at the end) because of pronunciation; that's just cool. : )

Fourth, from where did the quoted passage come from? What translation? Perhaps a more widely read version as a source (perhaps literal too to reduce the sectarian possibilities) is in order? Why in the world is that translation so eccentric as to use "holocaust" like this? Seriously. (Seriously.) I know it can...but WHY!? tooMuchData 11:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommend protect
Some Christians have been spreading the myth that Jephthah's daughter wasn't offered as a burnt sacrifice according to the Bible. This is false. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in the text as accords to the daughter's fate. If you find that difficult to reconcile with your faith, I suggest you stop editing Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia, not a spot for poorly rationalizing and equivocating your personal beliefs. PyroGamer (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(Response) Whether or not she was actually burnt or not, the text is deliberately ambiguous. It says וַיַּ֣עַשׂ לָ֔הּ אֶת־נִדְר֖וֹ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָדָ֑ר which literally means "He did to (alt. "for" or "with") the vow which he had vowed." It doesn't say that clearly he offered her as a sacrifice (or killed her) or that he locked her away. It is a deliberately ambiguous language. Conceptualinertia (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(Response) I am sorry that you have read the text incorrectly. This should not be protected because of a misreading and the article should be corrected to state that Jephthah's daughter was not killed. If you read further on in verse 38 of Judges 11, it clearly states that she wept for her lifelong virginity and not her impending death. Jepthath was a judge over Israel and worshiped the Israelite God who detested human sacrifices such as the ones the pagans were doing to their false gods. Only animals were to be sacrificed according to the law given by God and instituted in the Jewish sacrificial system of that time. God would not have accepted a human sacrifice and Jephthah, as a Judge, would have known that. Therefore, the text goes on to state in Judges 11: 37,38 that Jepthah's sacrifice was offering his daughter to remain a lifelong virgin in memory of his oath. In that timeframe and cultural context, being forced never to marry and produce offspring was a devastating thing for Jephthah's daughter and a sacrifice for Jephthah because he was losing one line of his lineage. Verse 39 confirms that she was never killed. The text is unequivocal and the reasoning is solid. Please correct the article to state this truth without bias.

 * Sorry, but Josephus and Augustine both know far more about the text and Judeo-Christian theology that a modern fundie apologist would, and they both knew very well that it was a burnt sacrifice and admitted it in their writings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.113.217.95 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

 * And both Josephus and Augustine were wrong. Many scholars have concluded otherwise. 173.10.19.46 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but however much you would like to believe otherwise, verse 39 confirms that she was killed: "After the two months, she returned to her father and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin."The only vow mentioned is the vow to sacrifice - anything else is wishful thinking, trying to make sense out of a book that reflects all sorts of societal changes over a very long time.  The story of Isaac should be enough of an indicator that human sacrifice was not unthinkable.  In any case, this article needs to reflect what is written by others, not original research.

The bit about her bewailing her virginity is most likely just meant to imply it was even sadder than it would have been otherwise because she was a young woman who had never even had a chance to be married and have children etc, also it stresses her purity and innocence. The next bit says women of the tribe would hold an annual lament for her - sounds a bit over the top if she just was dedicated to God and had to remain virginal, as opposed to her having been killed. Orlando098 (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

 * You've misread the entire thing. Nothing in the text indicates that the sacrifice was a literal killing. You've also misunderstood the story of Isaac as well--it was to show that human sacrifice was not needed--and to Christians, a representation of the sacrifice of Jesus. 173.10.19.46 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yearly, remembering the daughter of Jephtah?
Is this still practiced in today's Judaism? If yes it should be mentioned and if not it should be mentioned when and why the practice ceased. -- 92.230.13.99 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed the part the text stating that the spirit of the Lord came on Jepthah and caused him to make his oath
I changed the sentence stating that the spirit of the Lord came on Jepthah and caused him to swear his oath to read that he heedlessly swore. There is no indication in the Bible that what Jepthah did here was in any way pleasing to God - either in making the oath or in carrying it out. This passage is often interpreted to be a historical account of a wicked act done by one of the judges. Making a vow as he did was wrong, and then instead of repenting of his sin as he should have he compounded it with human sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsoz (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the article cited by Solomon Landers in Biblical Archeology Review or anywhere. Did someone make it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.39.56 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Idomeneus
The story of Jephtah is startingly similar to that of the general in Greek mythology, Idomeneus. Except there the first person to be met is Idomeneus' son, who is duly sacrificed. It would be interested to deal in the article about how (and if) the two stories are related. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

 * I think we need to update this to show that the Idomeneus story comes from Servius' commentary on the Aeneid. Right now it says, "The 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire (citing the 2nd Century BC writer Apollodorus)." Whether or not Voltaire thought that, I can't find anything that supports that Apollodorus actually gave the story about Idomeneus. However, here is the actual Latin text where Servius gives the story https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0053:book=11:commline=264&highlight=Idomeneus%2Crex%2CCretensium%2Cfuit Orluvoq (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, I found Voltaire's dictionary: http://www.davidmhart.com/liberty/FrenchClassicalLiberals/Voltaire/PhilosophicalDictionary/1901-English/index.html. In the section on Jephthah, he mentions Idomeneus but not Apollodorus. The current article text is an unsupported extrapolation. I am going to change it to reflect the data. Orluvoq (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

not not acceptable
Following [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jephthah&diff=583893212&oldid=582101909 this edit], the text at "Seen as unacceptable" includes "it was not not acceptable to God". This looks odd to me. Is that double "not" intended? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the text intends to read "not acceptable". I'm also wondering about the first part of the sentence, though, "the absence of expressed judgement implies..." I would have thought an absence of expressed judgement would normally imply something is acceptable. I don't have access to the article. StAnselm (talk) 08:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sacrifice
The historical and traditional view of this story is that Jephthah killed his daughter. This has been the mainstream view for centuries. I'm not against the article also covering modern views on "sacrifice" that did not involve death, but we should have the popular view first and then deal with the other material elsewhere. Otherwise we're in the odd position - at least for Christians - of completely dismissing Augustine's view on this. I'm also concerned that some editors take a pick and mix approach on accuracy in order to support apologist arguments. On the one hand they favour non-traditional readings of the Bible when dealing with topics such as a man killing his daughter because god tells him too. But on other articles they crawl all over the bible to insist on traditional readings concerning marriage or homosexuality. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In your presentation you can give first place to what you call "the popular view" (that Jephthah "did with her according to his vow that he had made" means that "he killed her"), but you can't in Wikipedia present it in isolation, keeping out of the sentence and paragraph, and even of the whole of the section that recounts the "story", the least hint that there is any discussion about the meaning of "did with her according to his vow that he had made". Your original-research and false presentation of the situation must be deleted.  Esoglou (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't do original research. This article needs some serious scholarly work. At the moment I don't have time - but may return to it in the future. It seems to me that it is skewed rather unhelpfully by a good dose of Christian apologetics. Seeing as the subject of the article is part of Jewish religious history (more so than Christian) I think we should primarily clarify the understanding of the story within Judaism. And there the major view is that the daughter died. Then we can add in the Christian perspective - although even here the Church Fathers are of the view that she died. In the medieval and early modern period we see the suggestion that she remained a virgin instead; but even Martin Luther argued the suggestion of death is clear. I think we need a bit more honesty, and a bit less soft-soap. I also would like a reference to Hamlet. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea that "he did with her according to his vow that he had made" meant that he kept her in seclusion was put forward by Jewish scholars (source) some centuries before Christians proposed it (source). Esoglou (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt some Jewish scholars did put forward that view. But you wouldn't know that from reading this poorly written apologist article. Many Jewish scholars did not. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To Esoglou: Nun-like vows of perpetual celibacy are not and have never been part of Judaism. I will repeat here what I have written above.
 * The word used in the story of Jephthah is 'Olah (עולה), which as a noun means "burnt offering" (sacrifice) in Biblical Hebrew. It is never used to denote "service in the temple", and moreover there is no precedent in the Hebrew Bible for a nun-like vow of perpetual celibacy. The commentaries of the above rabbis on this subject are known to have been influenced by the situation in their European Christian surroundings (e.g. Spain, France), in which girls could make vows of celibacy and become nuns. But this has never existed in Judaism.
 * Jephthah's daughter does not go off to "bewail her virginity" because she is about to take a vow of perpetual celibacy (for which she would have her entire life to bewail), but because she is about to die a virgin.
 * Those who are trying to sugarcoat the Biblical story of Jepthah seem to be missing the point. The Torah explicitly prohibits sacrificing one's offspring (Deut. 18:10, Jer. 7:31).
 * Nevertheless, it is explicitly acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible that at times Israelites did offer up their children as sacrifices, in direct contravention to God's prohibition (Jeremiah 7:30-31):
 * "For the children of Judah have done that which is evil in My sight, saith the LORD; they have set their detestable things in the house whereon My name is called, to defile it. And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into My mind."
 * Moreover, the Biblical text states that the period of the Judges (in which Jephthah lived) was a period of lawlessness (Judges 17:6, 21:25).
 * "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
 * It is against this backdrop that Jephthah's rash vow and actions are to be understood.
 * JD
 * Finally some sanity. I would rather we restructure the article to reflect this important points. I'm fed up of so many wiki articles being used simply to further some specific religious agenda. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally some sanity. I would rather we restructure the article to reflect this important points. I'm fed up of so many wiki articles being used simply to further some specific religious agenda. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Bullinger's grammatical objection makes no sense in the context of the text's meaning.

 * Judges 11:31 reads: "then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering."
 * Bullinger claims that it should read instead "then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the LORD'S, or I will offer it up for a burnt-offering."
 * Aside from the fact that the usual meaning of the Hebrew conjunction 'vav' is 'and' not 'or', Bullinger's interpretation renders the entire sentence meaningless and nonsensical. A burnt offering in the Hebrew Bible is precisely a sacrificial offering to God and by definition belongs to God. Jephthah is not stating an alternative between offering something to God, and offering up a burnt-offering. He is specifying the nature of this offering to God, as a burnt offering. Thus, the conjunction "vav" in this sentence here must mean "and".
 * Jacob D (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Jacob D

Relevance of cited U.S. Supreme Court decision
I find the relevance of the cited U.S. Supreme Court decision (in the case of Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadowmoor Dairies) quite obtuse. How is that decision relevant? --PloniAlmoni (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

History civics
The birthplace of judges falls in parent day 43.241.144.225 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Image
@StAnselm In what way does that image contribute to the page at all? It is 100% purely fictitious meaning it contributes nothing whatsoever towards a factual understanding. And, in my subjective opinion, the art style is really ugly and so it contributes nothing from an aesthetic perspective either. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been a long-standing consensus across many articles to include these images. If you want to change this, it probably requires a broader RfC. Amon of Judah passed GA status with a similar image, while there was a proposal to remove the image at Talk:Omri which did not receive any support. StAnselm (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Rush vows: weak discussion
The source used, Catholic Enc., is a bit fishy in this case. It offers 3 further examples of rush vows that sometimes led to human sacrifice, adding a weak "etc." as a quick way out. Did they indeed result in human sacrifice? I was surprised, checked, and saw that they didn't, the examples are not supporting the claim in this form. Our editor also added "vow to God" - that's also wrong, as unsupported.

 * 1) In example with David and the Gabaonites, there is no vow to God, certainly not from David. Did Joshua swear any vow towards the Gabaonites? I don't think so, but I'm not good at that :)
 * 2) King Achaz takes no vow, he just breaks the law in imitation of pagan cult and as a sign of gratitude toward Tiglath Pileser.
 * 3) David and the 7 descendants of Saul: there is no "sacrifice to God", not by the Israelites to be sure. The Gabaonites crucify the 7 as a way of cashing in kind of a "blood debt" of the house of Saul (cf. honour killing). Not quite the same, tribal revenge rather than God-fearing act of atonement.
 * 4) Battle of Michmash: after the battle, Saul does indeed uses a ban strenghtened by a vow, but is stopped by his army from sacrificing Jonathan.

Conclusion: the "examples" don't support the claim. Arminden (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 * My bad:
 * 2 Samuel 21.1-5
 * 21Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. The Lord said, "There is bloodguilt on Saul and on his house, because he put the Gibeonites to death."
 * [David allows for the execution/sacrifice to happen, then shows respect for remains (bones) of Saul, his sons and other executed descendants. As a result:]
 * 2 Samuel 21.14
 * After that, God heeded supplications for the land.
 * So the 7 deaths were required and sanctioned by God. Arminden (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which means: not "rush" either! Arminden (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jephthah


text:
Talk:Fine Young Cannibals (album)

This album was released in 1985 and not in 1986
However, the album was reissued in 1986 with two additional tracks, remixes of Johnny Come Home (Extended Mix) and Suspicious Minds (Suspicious Mix).

Fair use rationale for Image:Fine Young Cannibals - Fine Young Cannibals.jpg
Image:Fine Young Cannibals - Fine Young Cannibals.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fine Young Cannibals (album)


text:
Ham, Somme

Ham (Hin) is a commune in the Somme department in Hauts-de-France, northern France.

Geography
Ham is situated on the D930 and D937 crossroads, some 21 km southwest of Saint-Quentin, in the far southeast of the department, near the border with the department of the Aisne. Ham (Somme) station has rail connections to Amiens, Saint-Quentin and Laon. The nearby villages of Estouilly and Saint-Sulpice joined the commune of Ham in 1965 and 1966 respectively.

Population
The population data given in the table and graph below for 1962 and earlier refer to the commune of Ham excluding Estouilly and Saint-Sulpice.

History
Mentioned for the first time in 932 as a possession of the seigneur Erard, junior member of the Counts of Ponthieu. The town was later conquered by the Counts of Vermandois in the 12th century. In the 14th century it was owned by a family from Ham itself. From April 7 to June 3, 1917, Ham was home to the Lafayette Escadrille

The Castle of Ham
The first stone ramparts were put up in the 13th century by the local nobleman, Odon IV.

In the 15th century, the château was transformed into a formidable fortress by John II of Luxembourg, Count of Ligny.

In 1465, John's nephew, Louis of Luxembourg, built a huge donjon, 33m high, 33m in diameter with walls 11m thick.

In 1917, German forces blew up much of the château. All that remains are the entrance tower and vestiges of the donjon and ramparts.

Personalities

 * Francis de Bourbon, Count of St. Pol, Duke of Estouteville was born at Ham in 1491
 * General Maximilien Sebastien Foy was born at Ham in 1775
 * Jacques Cassard, intrepid sailor, was imprisoned at the château of Ham from 1726 to 1740.
 * Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, accused of plotting against the state, was imprisoned at the château of Ham from 1840 to 1846, when he escaped, disguised as a worker, carrying a plank on his shoulder.
 * Léon Accambray, French politician
 * Jean-Charles Peltier, physicist and meteorologist
 * Jean-Baptiste-Henri du Trousset de Valincourt (1643–1730), biographer of Louis XIV

Twin towns
🇩🇪 Eisfeld, Germany

title: Ham, Somme


text:
Talk:Don Music

Debut
The article currently states that "Don Music debuted in 1973, and was off by the next season". This can't be right; I distinctly remember watching Sesame Street in the early 1980s and seeing Don Music skits. —Psychonaut 00:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

According to the US.IMDB, it said that Richard Hunt did him from 1973-1990. I remember the show from the early 90s, and remember that character. --68.196.38.13 00:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The Simpson's article reference seems odd. I have seen that episode a number of times and it seems that the humerous point is that the organist dies/passes out after playing non-stop for 17 minutes or so. Perhaps someone else can enlighten but "banging her head" seems completely off base. --- Doesn't he often say "I'm sorry, Ludovico" and not Bill?--88.65.76.200 11:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, in the linked video, he seems to pretty clearly say "Ludwig". Tahnan 02:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the muppet wiki which is also linked, he alternately had Beethoven and William Shakespeare (that's a little closer to Bill, methinks) on his piano. 199.111.169.52 11:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

---

the cited article (from newsbank.com) is a dead link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superwesman (talk • contribs) 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

title: Talk:Don Music


text:
Moral Mazes

Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers is a 1988 book by sociologist Robert Jackall that investigates the world of corporate managers in the United States.

In the introduction, Jackall writes that he "went into these organizations to study how bureaucracy—the prevailing organizational form of our society—shapes moral consciousness" and that the book is "an interpretive sociological account of how managers think the world works."

It was named the "Most Outstanding Business and Management Book" of 1988 by the Association of American Publishers.

Summary
Moral Mazes is based on several years of fieldwork during which the author conducted interviews with managers in several large corporations in the early 1980s.

From these interviews, the book describes the social construction of reality within large corporations in the United States. The book argues that bureaucracy in large American corporations: "'regularizes people's experiences of time and indeed routinizes their lives by engaging them on a daily basis in rational, socially approved, purposive action; it brings them into daily proximity with and subordination to authority, creating in the process upward-looking stances that have decisive social and psychological consequences; it places a premium on a functionally rational, pragmatic habit of mind that seeks specific goals; and it creates subtle measures of prestige and an elaborate status hierarchy that, in addition to fostering an intense competition for status, also makes the rules, procedures, social contexts, and protocol of an organization paramount psychological and behavioral guides.'"Perhaps the most important finding is that successful managers are dexterous symbol manipulators. Successful managers provide a public face and may be categorized as providing emotional labor as one of their major activities. They must be able to work well with others and to sublimate their emotional and psychological needs to the demands of others. The very ambiguity of their work and its assessment leads to the feeling on the part of the managers that "instead of ability, talent, and dedicated service to an organization, politics, adroit talk, luck, connections, and self-promotion are the real sorters of people into sheep and goats".

Structure
The book begins with historical context. It shows how the organizational structure of American business changed in the 19th century. The author explains the creation of large corporations in the context of how the Industrial Revolution changed American industry. These changes demanded a professional management class. This new class then changed the organizational culture of American business, emphasizing decisions centered on money-based measures such as profit and loss (see also rational choice theory).

The book then describes the results of the author's interviews. The author's research included interviews with managers at various levels of the organizations. These unnamed organizations are large and medium-sized companies. The qualitative data collected by the interviews cover approximately four years, beginning in 1980, documenting changes in management within the corporations, business decisions, and the effect of those changes and decisions on the managers.

Popularity among Hacktivists
Moral Mazes was one of the "very favorite books" of hacktivist Aaron Swartz, making it an influential book within that community. Peter Ludlow, a writer on hacktivist culture, used the world of Moral Mazes to explain the actions of Edward Snowden.

title: Moral Mazes


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cientificos

Científicos were Porfirio Díaz's circle of technocratic advisors and should therefore be included in the Porfirio Diaz article as there is only 1 line it doesnt deserve its own page.


text:
2007 Australian federal election

The 2007 Australian federal election was held in Australia on 24 November 2007. All 150 seats in the House of Representatives and 40 of the seats in the 76-member Senate were up for election. The election featured a 39-day campaign, with 13.6 million Australians enrolled to vote.

The centre-left Australian Labor Party opposition, led by Kevin Rudd and deputy leader Julia Gillard, defeated the incumbent centre-right Coalition government, led by Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister, John Howard, and Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, by a landslide. The election marked the end of the 11 year Howard Liberal-National Coalition government that had been in power since the 1996 election. This election also marked the start of the six-year Rudd-Gillard Labor government.

Future Prime Minister Scott Morrison, future opposition leader Bill Shorten and future Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles entered parliament at this election. This would be the last time the Labor Party would win a majority at the federal level until the 2022 election. This remains the most recent election in which both major parties won over 40% of first preference votes.

Rudd became the third Labor leader after World War II to lead the party to victory from opposition, after Gough Whitlam in 1972, Bob Hawke in 1983, and before most recently Anthony Albanese in 2022.

Although the Coalition was defeated, the results in Western Australia bucked the national trend. While there was a swing against the Liberal Party and to the Labor Party, which allowed Labor to gain the seat of Hasluck from the Liberals, the Liberals managed to gain the seats of Cowan and Swan from Labor.

Key dates

 * Prorogation of 41st Parliament: 12 noon, 15 October
 * Dissolution of House of Representatives: 12 noon, 17 October
 * Issue of electoral writs: 17 October
 * Close of rolls (if not currently on roll): 8 p.m., 17 October
 * Close of rolls (if currently on roll and updating details): 8 p.m., 23 October
 * Close of nominations: 12 noon, 1 November
 * Declaration of nominations: 12 noon, 2 November
 * Polling Day: 24 November
 * Territory senators begin their terms: 24 November 2007
 * Return of writs: 21 December
 * First meeting of the 42nd Parliament: 12 February 2008
 * New state senators begin their terms: 1 July 2008

Under the provisions of the Constitution, the current House of Representatives may continue for a maximum of three years from the first meeting of the House after the previous federal election. The first meeting of the 41st Parliament after the 2004 election was on 16 November 2004, hence the parliament would have expired on 15 November 2007 had it not been dissolved earlier. There must be a minimum of 33 days and a maximum of 68 days between the dissolution of the House of Representatives and the day of the election. Prime Minister Howard opted for a 39-day campaign.

The prime minister of the day chooses the election date and requests the governor-general to dissolve the House and issue the writs for the election. On 14 October, John Howard gained the agreement of the governor-general, Major-General Michael Jeffery, to dissolve the House of Representatives and hold a general election for the House and half the Senate on 24 November 2007.

During the last term of parliament before the 2007 election, the deadline for new voter enrolment was brought forward from 7 working days after the issue of the writ to the same day. When the election was announced, the writ was not issued the next day, but on the following Wednesday. This kept the roll open for three days, during which 77,000 enrolment additions were processed.

Pre-election issues

Roy Morgan polling in June 2007 reported WorkChoices was a reason for Labor party support, and a fear of union dominance and support for Coalition economic management policy as the biggest reasons behind the Coalition vote. Several big business organisations, including the Australian Industry Group, declined a request from the Prime Minister to run advertisements to counter the union-funded campaign. The share of voters concerned about industrial relations grew from 31 per cent to 53 per cent in the two years to June 2006, with around three-fifths of voters backing Labor's ability to handle the issue over the Liberal Party.

A Newspoll released in June 2006 reported health and Medicare were the most important issue for voters; 83 per cent of respondents rated it "very important". Other key issues included education (79 per cent), the economy (67 per cent), the environment (60 per cent) and national security (60 per cent). Taxation and interest rates, key issues in previous campaigns, were rated very important by 54 per cent and 51 per cent respectively. Immigration, a key issue in 2001, scored 43 per cent. The poll showed that voters considered Labor marginally better-placed to handle health and education, and gave the government strong backing on the economy and national security.

Kevin Rudd promised Labor would introduce a greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 60 per cent by 2050, ratify the Kyoto protocol and introduce a mandatory renewable energy target (MRET) of 20 per cent by 2020. The Howard government reiterated their position of not ratifying the Kyoto protocol, setting "voluntary aspirational emission reduction targets" and introducing a carbon emissions trading scheme by 2012.

Labor pledged a $4.7 billion fibre-to-the-node broadband network.

On 7 June in a speech promoting the government's handling of the economy, Treasurer Peter Costello recalled the learner driver slogan of the 2004 election: "This [the economy] is like a highly engineered racing car and I tell you what, I wouldn't be putting an L-plate driver in the cockpit at the moment". August 2007 saw, for the first time during an election campaign, a 0.25-point interest-rate rise to 6.5 per cent by the Reserve Bank, the sixth rise since the last election in 2004. Labor used the news to argue that the Coalition could not be trusted to keep interest rates low, while Costello argued that interest rates would be higher under Labor. In November 2007 interest rates were raised for the sixth time since the 2004 election, to a 10-year high of 6.75 per cent. In response to Labor criticism of the government on the rate rises, Howard stated in August 2007 "[Rudd] can scour every transcript, and I will make them available, of every interview that I gave during that election campaign and he will find no such commitment.  During October 2007 Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews's decision to cut Australia's refugee intake and expressing public concern about Sudanese migrants was branded as racist.

The Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, described Andrews' criticism of Sudanese as "disturbing". She said: "It has been a long time since I have heard such a pure form of racism out of the mouth of any Australian politician." Labor politician Tony Burke branded Andrews' decision as "incompetent". However, Andrew's actions were applauded by the former One Nation politician, Pauline Hanson. Andrews was accused of helping to fuel assaults of Sudanese. During the controversy one criticism was that Andrews justified his decision based on "concerns raised by the community", however no official report or inquest has been tendered, leading to the conclusion that any 'concerns' were both unofficial, undocumented and most probably belonging to a racially intolerant minority. The Howard government had before used the race card in an election year to distract the voters from its other failures. This was most significant in the 2001 election with the infamous Tampa affair, in which the government was badly trailing in the polls before vilifying middle-eastern "boat people". The strategy worked for the government by exploiting the underlying racist elements of Australian society. Andrews defended the system of having refugee quotas against the opinion expressed that intakes of refugees should be variated on the basis of global needs ." In October 2007, Howard "admitted breaking a promise to keep interest rates at record lows".   During the 2004 campaign, Howard was also cited as giving the same promise, personally, on radio. Inflation figures released on 24 October indicated underlying inflation was higher than expected, which resulted in seven of eight financial companies believing there will be an interest rate rise when the reserve bank met in the middle of November, the first during an election campaign.

Rudd advocated four-year fixed terms for federal parliaments if elected. Howard supported four-year terms but opposed fixed election dates. Any change would require approval by referendum. In mid-October, Howard said that if re-elected, the government would hold a referendum on the inclusion a statement of reconciliation in the preamble of the constitution.

Week 1
On 14 October, Howard announced a 24 November election. The Coalition had been trailing Labor in the polls since 2006, and most pundits predicted that Howard would not be re-elected. ABC Online election analyst Antony Green noted the Coalition's numbers were similar to what Labor had polled before losing power in 1996. Howard's theme concentrated on leadership, stating that the nation "does not need new leadership, it does not need old leadership. It needs the right leadership" He said his government would strive to achieve full employment, which he argued was less likely under Kevin Rudd. In response, Rudd also concentrated on leadership, outlining his case for "new leadership". He argued that the government had 'lost touch' with the electorate, and that the Labor Party was best suited to deal with challenges that lie ahead.

A Galaxy poll showed a Labor 53-47 per cent Coalition two-party-preferred result, with a 2 per cent gap on primaries, and ACNielsen polling reported a 2 per cent swing to the Coalition, reducing Labor's lead to 54–46. Rudd dropped 5 per cent as preferred prime minister. A Newspoll sampling 1,700 voters taken over the weekend prior to the leaders' debate reported a swing to Labor, increasing their two-party-preferred lead to 58 per cent, a rise of 2 points. Labor's primary vote increased 3 points to 51 per cent, and the Liberals decreased by 2 points to 34 per cent. Rudd extended his lead by 2 points to 50 per cent, with Howard down by 2 points to 37 per cent.

On the first full day of the campaign, Howard and Costello announced a 'major restructuring of the income tax system' with tax cuts worth $35 billion over three years and a tax cut "goal" for the next five years. A few days later, Rudd released his policy which supported the reform measures, however offered education and health tax rebates instead of immediate cuts to the top rate as proposed by the Liberal Party, with a slower progression for the top rate.

The Liberals slogan, "go for growth" was launched after announcing the largest tax cut in Australian history. Media and political commentators questioned the suitability of the slogan in the context of rising inflation and interest rates.

During the latter part of the week union influence over the ALP was questioned after the launch of the Liberal party's first campaign ads. Labor responded with commercials attacking the Liberals' campaign as 'smears', which was disputed by John Howard. One of the Liberal Party election commercials was corrected after it incorrectly said Wayne Swan and Craig Emerson had previously been union officials.

Leaders' debate
A debate between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, under the moderation of the National Press Club, was shown live on ABC TV, the Nine Network, and Sky News Australia at 7.30 pm on 21 October. Rudd had called for a minimum of three debates between himself and Howard, while Howard, who had been rated poorly by studio audiences at past leadership debates, pressed for a single debate. A total of 2.4 million Australians watched the event, with Nine averaging 1.42 million, the ABC averaging 907,000, and Sky News averaging 62,000. The last election debate in 2004 was watched by 1.77 million on Nine and the ABC, while in 2001, average audiences on Nine, Seven and the ABC totalled 2.44 million. David Speers, Sky News's political editor, moderated the debate which was held in the Great Hall of Parliament House. The debate audience was 400, with the Coalition and Labor each selecting 200.

Kevin Rudd argued that the Liberal Party was being influenced by the H. R. Nicholls Society to make further reforms to industrial relations, citing Nick Minchin's speech at the Society's 2008 conference where he told the audience that the Coalition "knew its reform to WorkChoices were not popular but the process of change must continue", and that "there is still a long way to go... awards, the IR commission, all the rest of it..." In response to the Liberal Party message that 70 per cent of Labor's front bench was made up of former union officials, Rudd said 70 per cent of Liberal Party ministers were either lawyers or former Liberal Party staffers. On the same day, Peter Costello admitted when questioned that the 70 per cent figure was in reference to union members rather than union officials.

Rudd said that Howard had "no plan for the future" on tackling climate change. Howard said that a Coalition government would establish a climate change fund after 2011, which would be financed by carbon offsets.

The Nine Network, which broadcast the debate as an extended edition of 60 Minutes, used 'the Worm' in its broadcast despite prior objections from the Liberal Party and action from the National Press Club to cease its video feed. As a result, the Nine Network's feed was cut part way into the broadcast, which Nine then replaced with Sky News's coverage. The Nine television network's live audience, via the Worm's average, scored the debate 65 to 29 in Rudd's favour, with 6 per cent remaining undecided. Both sides, however, claimed victory. Nine had a separate group of 80 it said were 'swinging' voters (chosen by McNair Research) in its studio to control 'the Worm'. Steps were taken to ensure equal numbers so as not to taint the Worm. At one point, Peter Costello was asked to cease interjecting.

Week 2
Figures released on the Tuesday, showed a stronger than expected underlying rate of inflation of 3 per cent. Treasurer Peter Costello argued against an increase in interest rates, saying the Reserve Bank should concentrate on the headline consumer price index (CPI) inflation rate which rose of 1.9 per cent for the period.

Controversy arose over the Coalition's climate change policy, with The Financial Review citing "government sources" who claimed Turnbull told Cabinet six weeks ago it should sign the Kyoto Protocol. Neither Howard nor Turnbull denied the story. The story said that "internal critics" are claiming Turnbull is "selfishly positioning himself for a Coalition defeat" and a "possible post-poll leadership battle with Treasurer Peter Costello". The story led to claims of major splits in Cabinet.

Labor also suffered from mixed messages. Kevin Rudd was compelled to clarify Labor policy on climate change after an interview in which Peter Garrett suggested Labor would sign up to the post-Kyoto agreement at 2012 even if carbon-emitting developing countries did not. Rudd's comments, which he described as having "always been [Labor's] position", saw Labor's policy move closer to Liberal policy, insofar as Labor would ratify the agreement only after persuading all major carbon emitters, developing and developed, to ratify. Rudd also committed Labor to a target of a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, a 5-point increase on the Liberal target, assisted by the use of renewable energy, but without the use of coal pollution mitigation, arguing that it would ultimately be a benefit, not a detriment to the economy.

Week 3
John Howard said the Coalition would not match Labor's promise of 20 per cent renewable energy target. Howard claimed Labor's policy "imposes too many additional costs to industry". Peter Garrett replied that lack of government action has cost jobs. ABC Radio reported that Howard had rejected a 2005 recommendation for higher renewable energy targets by his Environment Minister, but Howard declined to confirm or deny the claim.

The Coalition announced a promise to open 50 new emergency medical centres on Australia if re-elected. Adding to the campaign trend of both major parties criticising their opponent for plagiarism and "me-tooism", Labor responded that the government had copied its policy.

Peter Garrett was criticised by the Coalition when radio announcer Steve Price revealed Garrett had said to TV presenter Richard Wilkins that, "once we get in we'll just change it all" in reference to copying Coalition policies. Garrett said the comment was made during a "short, jocular and casual" conversation and Wilkins supported Garrett's response, saying that it was a "light-hearted throwaway line".

Tim Costello, director of World Vision Australia and Peter Costello's brother, criticised Australia's ranking of 19th out of 22 OECD countries for provision of overseas aid, and for government unwillingness to increase its policy of 0.35 per cent of national GDP to match Labor's commitment of 0.5 per cent. Howard said his party planned to lift the rate to 3.5 per cent.

Commentators pronounced Peter Costello and Wayne Swan's debate on 30 October as ending in a draw. Costello focused mainly on the government's past record, advocating the need for Australia to build into the future, while Swan said Labor were interested in "investing in people". Howard said he believed Costello "creamed" his opponent, while Rudd said Swan did a "fantastic job".

Liberal Tony Abbott and Labor's Nicola Roxon debated health at the National Press Club on ABC television. Abbott's character and ministerial capacity were questioned by Roxon for his comments about terminally ill asbestos campaigner Bernie Banton and for arriving 35 minutes late to debate. At the end of the debate, Roxon suggested to Abbott that he "could have arrived on time" if he had "really wanted to", to which Abbott replied "bullshit". Former Liberal campaign strategist Sue Cato said "you just don't run late for things like that". Abbott apologised to Banton but not to Roxon.

Week 4
On 10 November, the Australian Democrats held their campaign launch in Melbourne under the banner of Bring Back Balance, a reference to their central campaign theme of preventing the government from regaining absolute control of the Senate.

The Reserve Bank of Australia adjusted interest rates upwards by another 0.25 per cent, the sixth rise since the last election, to a 10-year high of 6.75 per cent, and the first time the Bank had been changed rates during an election campaign. The Coalition said that only the current government had the proper experienced team to manage the economy in future, less prosperous years. Costello argued that the inflationary reasons for the rate rise were "outside the control of a Government". In response, Labor accused the Coalition of having "hauled up the white flag in the fight against inflation", saying that they had backflipped from their past statements that they could keep interest rates low. Howard stated that he was sorry for the negative consequences for and burden on Australian borrowers, but subsequently denied that this constituted an apology for the rate rise itself.

On 7 November, Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey and Labor's Julia Gillard debated industrial relations including WorkChoices at the National Press Club in Canberra. Hockey argued that Labor's policy to drop Workchoices was Australia's biggest threat to inflation. On 8 November, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull and opposition spokesman Peter Garrett debated environment issues at the National Press Club in Canberra. Garrett criticised the government's record on climate change to which Turnbull responded that Garrett's current claims betray his previous career as a political activist.

Week 5
Both major parties had their official campaign launches in Brisbane, Queensland; the Liberal Party on Monday 12 November and Labor on Wednesday 14 November. At their launch, the Coalition pledged a rebate for education costs, including private school fees, of all Australian children, totalling $9.4 billion. Under the plan, primary school students would have been eligible for $400, while secondary-school students would have been eligible for $800. Tax cuts worth $1.6 billion over four years were proposed to encourage people to save for first homes, and extra funding of $652 million for child care and $158 million to support carers was promised.

The Labor Party promised to spend only a quarter of the $9.4 billion promised by the Coalition, saying it would have a smaller impact on inflation. It accused the Howard government of being "irresponsible". In addition to previous education funding announcements, Rudd promised Labor would provide an additional 65,000 apprenticeships, migrate all schools to new high speed broadband, and provide all year 9–12 students with access to their own computer. A doubling of the number of undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships available at a tertiary level was announced, and the party re-iterating its view on climate change and WorkChoices.

The Labor Party released footage on Thursday 15 November to Lateline, showing Tony Abbott addressing a room of people, stating "I accept that certain protections, in inverted commas, are not what they were" in reference to WorkChoices legislation. Referring to award structures, Abbott said in the same footage: "I accept that that has largely gone. I accept that." When questioned, Abbott said he stood by the comments that WorkChoices means "certain protections" are not what they used to be, but denied conceding workers had lost protections. He said the video released by Labor was a "cut-and-paste job".

A report by the National Audit Office found that the Coalition had been interfering in the $328 million regional grants program, with a bias toward their marginal seats, where projects under the Regional Partnerships Program were apparently approved without proper assessment, or none at all, and that there was an increase in approvals prior to the 2004 election.

Week 6
Newspoll stated Labor's two-party-preferred level was down one point to 54 per cent. Former Liberal Party campaign director Lynton Crosby said that the Coalition was "closing in on Labor" in the final week and could "still win a tight election" on a campaign of defending marginal seats, declaring a win still possible on 48.5 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote.

On 20 November, John Howard defended the government's advertising spending in the months prior to the campaign, paid for with public money. The advertising, which covered topics including the controversial "Workchoices", cost $360 million over approximately 18 months. An article in the 20 November issue of the Herald Sun suggested spending could have been up to $500 million, though this took a broader view of what was included in that sum. Howard was criticised for not revealing documents written by his department about further changes to industrial relations laws in addition to WorkChoices legislation. In response, the government said the proposals had been cancelled, and that WorkChoices would not be expanded upon. The Seven Network failed in attempt to access the documents under Freedom of Information.

Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce said that the possibility of his crossing the floor to support Labor's amendments to WorkChoices remained open, and that he would judge all legislation on its merits, for which he was criticised by Nationals leader Mark Vaile.

On 21 November, three days before the election, fake pamphlets were distributed in the electorate of Lindsay, which purported to be from an Islamic group. The group was non-existent and the pamphlets thanked the Labor Party for supporting the Bali bombers and encouraged people to vote Labor. Those involved included a member of the Liberals' state executive, Jeff Egan; Gary Clark, husband of retiring MP Jackie Kelly; and Greg Chijoff, the husband of Lindsay candidate Karen Chijoff. Kelly said the incident was a "Chaser-style prank." John Howard condemned the statement. Egan and Greg Chijoff were immediately expelled from the Liberal Party a day before John Howard's address to the Australian Press Club; although, Egan denied any wrongdoing. Court cases are progressing.

Citing a clause of the Constitution that states parliamentarians are not permitted to hold an "office of profit under the crown", government frontbencher Andrew Robb said that up to 13 Labor candidates standing in the election may be ineligible for nomination. According to Robb, a "search of public records" indicated that the 13 candidates may have still been employed by government agencies, boards or offices, and that the Liberal Party may consider legal challenges to their election. According to Labor Senator Penny Wong, all Labor's candidates were eligible to stand, and that the Liberals had obtained the information from outdated websites.

Election day was Saturday 24 November.

Television coverage
Election night was covered extensively by three of the Australian free-to-air networks, from the National Tally Room: ABC Television, the Nine Network and the Seven Network. Network Ten and SBS Television included brief updates and news bulletins through the night, but not to the other networks' extent. Sky News offered extensive coverage on Pay TV.

 * Seven went with a new election coverage team for 2007, led by Sunrise hosts David Koch and Melissa Doyle, who were assisted by journalist Mark Riley and game show host Andrew O'Keefe. Special guests included Liberal politicians Joe Hockey, Jackie Kelly, Andrew Robb and former Victorian Premier Jeff Kennett, Labor politicians Tanya Plibersek, Mark Arbib and former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, and National politician Barnaby Joyce. The broadcast was watched by 967,000 viewers, coming second after the ABC.
 * Nine's coverage was hosted by journalist Ray Martin and political editor Laurie Oakes. Special guests included Labor politicians Senator Robert Ray and Shadow Treasurer Wayne Swan, Liberals Michael Kroger and Communications Minister Helen Coonan. The broadcast was watched by 763,000 people and came third among the free-to-air networks doing full election count coverage.
 * The ABC's coverage was hosted by Kerry O'Brien, Tony Jones and Antony Green. Special guests included Senator Nick Minchin (Finance Minister), representing the Coalition, and Julia Gillard (Deputy Labor Leader). The ABC provided live crosses to key electorates around Australia. The broadcast was watched by 1,112,000 viewers and was the most watched election coverage.
 * Sky News Australia's coverage was hosted by David Speers in Sydney with Helen Dalley at the tally room in Canberra. Guests included former prime minister Bob Hawke, former Labor Leader Kim Beazley, former Liberal Leader John Hewson, and current members in Parliament, including Brendan Nelson and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells from the Liberal Party, Natasha Stott Despoja from the Democrats, Christine Milne from The Greens and Stephen Conroy and Tony Burke from the Labor Party. Party strategists Bruce Hawker and Lynton Crosby analysed the figures from the Sky News Centre in Sydney.

 * Ten News covered the results in a special news bulletin airing about 10:30 pm. Anchored by Bill Woods and Paul Bongiorno in Canberra, and featuring Sandra Sully with Kevin Rudd in Brisbane, Deborah Knight with John Howard in Sydney, and Helen Kapalos with Peter Costello in Victoria. The network had heavily advertised that they would be airing The Empire Strikes Back as an alternative to the coverage on the other networks.
 * SBS aired a results bulletin at 9:30 pm, anchored by Stan Grant alongside Canberra correspondent Karen Middleton.

Polling

Roy Morgan, Newspoll, ACNeilsen and Galaxy timegraph polling showed Labor leading the Coalition in opinion polling from mid-2006 onward. On several key questions, Labor increased its lead after Rudd assumed the Labor leadership from Kim Beazley, at which point Rudd also assumed the lead as preferred prime minister. While Labor was ahead in opinion polling, Howard had led Beazley on this question by a wide margin.

According to Australian political analyst Adam Carr, WorkChoices was one of five key reasons for "...a change of heart by the decisive sectors of the electorate". The new industrial relations program, Carr said, angered the "Howard battlers" – the traditional Labor voters who had supported Howard for most of the last 11 years – because they saw it as a direct attack on their livelihood.

ACNielsen polling in March 2007 had Rudd's personal approval rating at 67 per cent, which made him the most popular opposition leader in the poll's 35-year history, with Newspoll (News Limited) 2PP polling the highest in its history at 61%. The largest 2PP election result for the ALP in its history was at the 1943 election on an estimate of 58.2 per cent.

A weighted collaboration of all polling since Rudd assumed the ALP leadership shows an average Labor 2PP figure of 57 per cent compared with the Coalition's 43 per cent, and Rudd's consistent outpolling of Howard as preferred prime minister, something not achieved under previous leaders Mark Latham, Kim Beazley or Simon Crean.

By the time the writs were issued, the Coalition was well behind Labor in opinion polling, which election analyst Antony Green believed to show Labor winning government "in a canter". According to Green, this was a nearly exact reversal of the run-up to the 1996 election. The Coalition was running ahead of Labor in two-party opinion polling for much of 1995 and 1996, however the mantle of preferred prime minister regularly switched between Howard and Paul Keating.

Possums Pollytics, an anonymous weblog, stated that due to the uneven nature of the swings, where safe Liberal seats were swinging up to 14.6 per cent with safe Labor seats swinging around only 4.1 points, the Labor party stood to potentially end up with a maximum of 106 of the 151 lower house seats.

Polling consistently showed that the economy and national security were the Coalition's strong areas. In August 2007 an Ipsos poll showed 39 per cent of voters thought Labor was a better economic manager, compared to 36 per cent for the Coalition, with 25 per cent undecided.

The morning of the election announcement, a special Sun-Herald Taverner survey of 979 people across New South Wales and Victoria had been released, indicating a Labor 2PP of 59 per cent, with the 18- to 29-year-old category voting at 72 per cent. The fortnightly Newspoll was released the day after the election was called, showing the 2PP remaining steady at Labor 56–44 Liberal. Howard increased his Preferred PM rating up one per cent to 39 per cent, while Rudd increased his rating up one per cent to 48 per cent. On the day after the election was called, Centrebet had odds of 1.47 on Labor, with 2.70 on the Coalition. Halfway through the campaign, with no overall change in the polls, saw Centrebet odds for Labor shorten to 1.29, with the Liberals on 3.60. Centrebet odds two days out from the election were at 1.22 for Labor, with 4.35 for the Coalition.

Newspoll a week out from the election of 3,600 voters in 18 of the Coalition's most marginal seats revealed an ALP 54–46 Coalition 2PP, a swing to Labor of 6–9 per cent. A uniform swing would see 18–25 seats fall to Labor, The Australian said.

Former Labor number-cruncher Graham Richardson, who news.com.au (News Limited) claims to have correctly picked the winner of every election for the past three decades, tipped Kevin Rudd and Labor to win with a 6–7 per cent two-party-preferred, 20-seat swing.

The election-eve Newspoll and Galaxy poll reported the ALP on a 2PP of 52 per cent, Roy Morgan on 53.5 per cent, with ACNielsen on 57 per cent. Seven News reported that TAB had updated their odds for the election, with Labor having safe odds of $1.20 and the Coalition an outside chance on $4.60.

Sky News-Channel 7-Auspoll exit polls on election day of 2,787 voters in the 31 most marginal seats suggested a 53 per cent two-party preferred figure to Labor, 53 per cent to Labor in Bennelong, and 58 per cent to Labor in Eden-Monaro. Key issue questions swung Labor's way.

House of Representatives

At 8.00 pm, the first personality to call the election was former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke on Sky News. At 10.29 pm AEST, approximately two hours after the last polls in Western Australia closed, Liberal deputy leader Peter Costello conceded that the Coalition had lost government. At 10.36 pm, John Howard delivered a speech at the Sofitel Sydney Wentworth to concede defeat. At 11.05 pm, Kevin Rudd delivered his victory speech.

Labor won 83 of the 150 seats in the incoming House of Representatives. This represented a 23-seat swing to Labor. The Liberals won 55 while the Nationals won 10, with two seats retained by Independents. Labor finished with a 52.70 per cent two-party-preferred vote, a 5.44-point swing from 2004. On preferences, 79.7 per cent of Green votes flowed to Labor, 60.3 per cent of Family First votes flowed to the Coalition, with 62.5 per cent of Democrat votes flowing to Labor. Considering two-party estimates going back to the 1949 election, the swing to Labor in 2007 was the fourth-largest two-party-preferred swing, behind John Curtin and Labor in 1943 on 7.9 per cent, Malcolm Fraser and the Coalition in 1975 on 7.4 per cent, and Gough Whitlam and Labor in 1969 on 7.1 per cent. The swing was the largest since 1983, when full preference counting was introduced to create an exact two-party figure, and the largest swing to occur in the absence of a recession, political or military crisis.

Western Australia went against the national trend, with the Liberals suffering only a 2.14-point swing against them – lower than all except Tasmania and the ACT – but yet gaining one net seat. The weaker Labor performance was attributed to the strong economy and voters' unwillingness to do anything which might risk their present prosperity – a sentiment played to by Liberal campaigning strategies – and also the behaviour of union officials Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald who had made headlines during the campaign.

Senate
Labor and the Coalition won 18 seats each in the half-Senate election. The Greens won three seats, with Independent Nick Xenophon being elected on primary votes alone. This took the 76-member Senate total to 37 Coalition, 32 Labor, 5 Green, 1 Family First, and 1 Independent. With a majority being 39 senators, when the new Senate met after 1 July 2008, the balance of power was shared between Xenophon, Family First's Steve Fielding and the five Greens. Xenophon, although reported as left-of-centre, indicated plans to work closely with the renegade National, Senator Barnaby Joyce. If sufficient Coalition senators voted for government legislation, support from the crossbench was not required.

Xenophon's election was at the expense of a Liberal candidate, without his presence the Coalition would have held enough Senate seats to block legislation.

Compared to the previous Senate, the Greens gained one (losing Kerry Nettle in NSW but gaining Sarah Hanson-Young in SA and Scott Ludlam in WA), a new Independent was elected (Xenophon), and Labor gained four seats. The Coalition lost two, and the Democrats lost all four of their seats.

The informal rate of 2.55 per cent ties with the 1993 election as the lowest informal rate in the Senate since federation. The introduction of the group voting ticket at the 1984 election saw the number of informal votes drop dramatically.

Defeat of the Prime Minister
Prime Minister John Howard lost his own seat of Bennelong, in Northern Sydney, to Labor candidate and former journalist Maxine McKew, becoming the second sitting prime minister, and the third party leader, since Federation to be defeated in his own electorate. Prime Minister Stanley Bruce and National Party leader Charles Blunt lost their seats in 1929 and 1990 respectively. Howard had held the seat since 1974, and it had been in Liberal hands ever since its creation in 1949.

However, successive redistributions, along with demographic change, had made the once safe Liberal seat much friendlier to Labor; much of the area was represented by Labor at the state level. Howard's two-party majority was four percent, putting it right on the edge of seats that Labor would likely take in the event it won.

Late on election night, when conceding Labor had won government, Howard also acknowledged the likelihood he had lost Bennelong to McKew, though he and McKew agreed the margin was "very tight". He had been ahead by thin margins for most of the night, never leading by more than 0.2 percentage points. Howard had been 206 votes ahead of McKew on the first count, and finished 2.8 percentage points behind McKew on the estimated two-party vote. McKew declined to claim victory at first, saying that the seat was on "a knife edge," while the Australian Broadcasting Corporation listed Bennelong as a Labor gain on election night, and ABC election analyst Antony Green said there was "no doubt" McKew had won.

On 29 November, Rudd named McKew as a parliamentary secretary (assistant minister) to be appointed on 3 December, and on 1 December, McKew claimed victory. Although counting was incomplete at the time, with several postal and absentee ballots outstanding, it was expected that Howard would not win enough of the votes to retain his seat. McKew finished with a primary vote of 45.33 per cent, and a two-party-preferred vote of 51.40 per cent, a 5.53-point swing from 2004. Howard lost on the 14th count due to a large flow of Green preferences to McKew. This swing was within the redistributed boundaries after the 2004 election.

Three other Howard ministers were defeated – Mal Brough, Gary Nairn and Jim Lloyd.

Seats changing hands
The following table indicates seats that changed hands from one party to another at this election. It compares the election results with the previous margins, taking into account the redistribution in New South Wales and Queensland. As a result, it includes the newly created electorate of Flynn, and the existing Parramatta, which was retained by Labor despite becoming a notional Liberal seat due to boundary changes. The table does not include Gwydir, which was abolished in the redistribution; Macquarie, which was reclassified from safe Liberal to marginal Labor and was subsequently won by Labor; or Calare, the seat of Independent MP Peter Andren, which was reclassified as a National seat by the redistribution and was won by the National Party.

 * Members listed in italics did not contest their seats at this election.

Aftermath
The Labor caucus met on Thursday 29 November 2007 to confirm the First Rudd Ministry, which was sworn in on 3 December. In a departure from Labor tradition, the ministry was selected by Kevin Rudd as the prime minister, rather than by Caucus.

Given John Howard's personal defeat, the Liberal Party began the process of choosing a new leader. The morning after the election, Peter Costello, the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, and long regarded as Howard's natural successor, stated that he would not run for Liberal leadership. The day before the ballot, former Health Minister Tony Abbott withdrew from the leadership after initially indicating he would stand. The leadership ballot was held on Thursday 29 November. The previous Defence Minister Brendan Nelson and former Environmental Minister Malcolm Turnbull both stood for the leadership. Former Education Minister Julie Bishop contested the deputy leadership position, as did Andrew Robb and Christopher Pyne.

Brendan Nelson was elected leader by 45 votes to 42, and Julie Bishop was elected deputy leader. A Newspoll survey taken after the Liberal leadership change revealed a preferred-prime-minister rating of Rudd 61 per cent to Nelson 14 per cent, with Turnbull twice as popular as Nelson. Newspoll's subsequent polling saw new Newspoll records set, at 70 per cent for the best rating for preferred prime minister, to 9 per cent for the worst rating for preferred prime minister, with the next poll results revealing another record of 73 to 7 per cent. A new two party preferred record was also set, at 63 to 37 per cent Labor's way.

Post-election, ALP secretary Tim Gartrell commented on pre-election campaign billboard ads featuring a picture of John Howard stating "Working families in Australia have never been better off", which looked like Liberal Party advertisements, were actually paid for by the Labor Party. Liberal leader Brendan Nelson declared that the Liberal Party had listened and learned from the Australian public and declared WorkChoices "dead".

In 2008, former ministers Peter McGauran, Alexander Downer, and Mark Vaile resigned from parliament, sparking Gippsland, Mayo, and Lyne by-elections. The Lyne by-election resulted in independent Rob Oakeshott being elected, reducing the total number of Coalition seats to 64. Bradfield and Higgins by-elections were held in December 2009.

In September 2008, Malcolm Turnbull replaced Brendan Nelson in a leadership spill, and Barnaby Joyce replaced CLP Senator and Nationals deputy leader Nigel Scullion as leader of the Nationals in the Senate, and moved the party to the crossbenches. Joyce stated that his party would no longer necessarily vote with their Liberal counterparts in the upper house.

In Popular Culture
The comedy band The Axis of Awesome parodied the events of the election in a song.

title: 2007 Australian federal election