Talk:Martin Ferguson (politician)

Merge from Ferguson Left

While I have expanded the one sentence stub of Ferguson Left, I cannot see any rationale for a separate article, hence I have proposed a merger. Another possible redirect from Ferguson Left would be an article on Labor factions. Any views?--A Y Arktos 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with merger, I think you've done a good job on the article and it can be expanded much further, particularly the groups views on forestry and nuclear energy which make it a pretty unusual Left group. DarrenRay 00:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tags removed --A Y Arktos 01:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential Expulsion from the Australian Labor Party

This section concerns something said to have occurred in 2014, yet the citation is from 1995 Tim (no Wikipedia account, 26.2.15) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.47.85.194 (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Per BLP, make sure there's a WP:BLPSOURCE citation for everything. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Ferguson Left be merged into Martin Ferguson. I think that the content in the Ferguson Left article can easily be explained in the context of Martin Ferguson, and the Martin Ferguson article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Ferguson Left will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. -- Aronzak (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is currently pretty outdated, but our coverage of ALP factionalism is appalling and we shouldn't be merging the few articles we do actually have. Were this article to be merged into something, this article would be inappropriate anyway as Ferguson may have founded the faction but it's not all about him; a list of factions or something similar might do, but they can all easily sustain articles by themselves. Frickeg (talk) 11:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's a stub article that has only two paragraphs and a sentence, and only two refs, one of which is a dead link, with nearly all the pages that link to it using Template:Australian Labor Party. Currently the Ferguson Left article dosen't meet notability guidelines, with only two references. -- Aronzak (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• • • No, that is not how notability works. Just because the article currently has only two references doesn't mean there are only two references. Factionalism is a big part of Labor politics and seriously under-represented on Wikipedia at the moment. Unlike Liberal factions, these are formal organisations. At the very worst this article should be merged into a separate page on ALP factionalism that does not yet exist, but I still think it warrants its own page. Frickeg (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I would have to see some drafts to have an opinion either way. AlanS^talk 12:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Is more relevant to forming part of a larger article on ALP factions rather than hiding it in the Martin Ferguson article.Screech1616 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. A merge to Australian Labor Party#Factions might be better. That section also needs better sourcing. The faction should be mentioned in this bio too. I would link to sources, but am on a mobile and just lost my previous post. I didn't find much in the way of significant coverage, but the connections to Gillard mean it deserves mention in the main ALP article. Fences&Windows 20:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would support that. Just seems bizarre these tags have been here for so long, if the issue is so important. Maybe nobody close to the subject wants to let the public know how it works, like a sausage factory. -- Aronzak (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is the kind of subject on which the vast majority of significant coverage is going to be in sources like books and journals. I won't be at a major library any time very soon, but can add it to my list next time I'm at one. Frickeg (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• I also want to make explicitly clear that I oppose this. The coverage of this topic in reliable sources is abundant, and it needs work, not merging. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will make that explicit too: it would be a less bad result than merging to Ferguson's article, but still a bad result. Frickeg (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm happy to change the tags if consensus goes that way -- Aronzak (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• oppose per already given arguments. Donama (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This merger proposal is bizarre. Ferguson started the faction, but it is way bigger than him (it was the faction of the Prime Minister, for the love of god), its significance is way larger than one man, and to the extent to which it survives, no longer really has much to do with somebody who of late has essentially been daring the Labor Party to expel him. There are absolutely abundant sources (book and newspaper) that could be relied on. I'd oppose merging it with anything (all federal and most state Labor Party factions pass WP:GNG with flying colours, since they're actually ongoing formal organisations), but the suggestion of merging it with Ferguson personally is very silly. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Withdrawn closing per WP:SNOW.-- Aronzak (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Martin Ferguson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060310150116/http://s7digital.com/signature/sig-stories.php?id=540 to http://s7digital.com/signature/sig-stories.php?id=540
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208135331/http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1472382.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200509/s1472382.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060328175351/http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/presenters/martinfergusonmp.htm to http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/presenters/martinfergusonmp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)