Talk:George Ferguson (politician)

DOB

What is the correct date of birth? Deb 11:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is there in the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Peacock tag

Weasel words removed, citations added and article expanded. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco Factory

I've changed the priorities in the list of the TF's uses. It is primarily a performance venue (opera, theatre &c), not a retaurant and café bar. Ioan_Dyfrig (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

Now that he's been elected Mayor of Bristol, should we perhaps change the article's title? Although previously best known as an architect, he is now far better known for his political role. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Why not rename to George Ferguson (red trousers), as that's what he's best known for,

He's still better known for his past involvement in urban development (more so than architecture - could you name a building of his design?) than anything he has done by being Mayor for a couple of weeks. Renaming to George Ferguson (mayor) is too close to WP:RECENTISM and just seems like a change for the sake of finding something to do, not because it's a clear improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Bristol Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hengrove Play Park proposal

1) This section describes a current controversy regarding budget cuts proposed by Bristol City Council, which is led by George Ferguson in capacity of mayor. It is likely that an author is using this biography as a soapbox, since this section constitutes a disproportionately large proportion (~25%) of the description of the life and career of GF. WP:RECENTISM

2) This section is biased, since it does not mention the resolution of the controversy, published by Bristol City Council at http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/nature_reserves_and_major_parks/Reason%20for%20updated%20proposal.pdf

This section should be removed from the biography. --78.147.11.45 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Been removed, as per request above.--89.242.230.78 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

The creating editor has reverted the deletion without comment or justification. This section "Hengrove Play Park Proposal" still needs to be removed, for the reasons given above, and this article protected.--2.99.239.167 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hold on a second...

First of all I'd like to apologise about my late response. I didn't know that this removal request existed until today (6 January 2014) so I couldn't write a reply on the Mayor of Bristol's talk page. I'm sorry.

After reading the reasons why the section should be removed I was left bemused. The section is no longer "bias" because it stated the "resolution of the controversy, published by Bristol City Council" upon deletion.

Furthermore, I am not using the section for a "soapbox" and it does not "constitutes a disproportionately large proportion" because of the large amount of information related to the topic of interest available online and through local/ national newspapers.

George Ferguson is highly involved with the Hengrove Play Park proposal and should be credited. His comments on the situation have been mentioned throughout. Because of his high self-confessed involvement with his Council's proposal and negative criticism about Ferguson's decisions he has directly been receiving through social networking sites such as Twitter, the section should remain on the article for the time being because of its appeal to local Bristolians, the south-west region and general Wikipedian visitors.

The section is going to be re-added.

Wormwell (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The "Hengrove Park" addition is clearly contentious. William Avery advised/requested to discuss the "Hengrove Park" on this talk page before it is accepted. Wormwell has not discussed or justified the addition, but rather has made a statement and has then replaced the disputed paragraphs. I have subsequently removed it again pending discussion and agreement. Wormwell says "The section is going to be re-added." This statement does not suggest a spirit of collaboration. It is in the spirit of Wikipedia for editors to collaborate on articles.

Wormwell says that "the section should remain on the article for the time being". It is one of the editorial policies of Wikipedia that articles should not be edited to reflect current or contemporary issues. This is called "Recentism", and is to be avoided. Using Wikipedia to voice opinions about current issues is called "soapboxing".

Annebristolian suggested that the description of this controversy would be more appropriately located in Wikipedia within the "Hengrove Park" article. If this were to happen, it would also need to be summarised so that it does not take up a disproportionate part of the Hengrove Park article. And in the Hengrove Park article, this material would still suffer from "Recentism".

The "George Ferguson" article is a biography. Ferguson is currently a leader, and it is in the nature of leadership that there will be people who disagree with decisions. This is inevitable. Readers in Bristol and abroad will be referring to this article to find out more about Ferguson. It is not helpful for such readers to find that a large proportion of the biography is about just one of many dozens of activities, all of which someone will disagree with. If biographies of leaders often listed in great detail minor activities with which some people disagreed, then Wikipedia would not work at all for biographies.

The "Hengrove Park" section is a large proportion of the biography, yet reports just one activity. To put it into proportion, it could be replaced with the statement "Ferguson has made decisions with which some disagree."

Wormwell, what do you think of my proposal to summarise and move this section to the "Hengrove Park" article, and to replace it with the statement "Ferguson has made decisions with which some disagree"? --78.149.13.72 (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

78.149.13.72 stated that Wormwell "has not discussed or justified the addition, but rather has made a statement and has then replaced the disputed paragraphs" although Wormwell justified their reasoning for the "Hengrove Play Park proposal" being on the page, mentioning that the proposal is in relation to George Ferguson's involvement with him being the Mayor of Bristol leading the council. Bristol is the city where the dispute is happening.

Wormwell mentioned that "the section should remain on the article for the time being", not because of "Recentism" but because the section could be moved to the "Hengrove Play Park" Wikipedia page or be adapted. Until being moved to another page, the section should remain being on George Ferguson's Wikipedia page for the "time-being" as he has commented on the situation many times himself, having a high involvement. George Ferguson's page seems best suited as George Ferguson has little do with the Hengrove Play Park apart from his proposal made in 2013.

78.149.13.72 expressed his opinion that "the "Hengrove Park" section is a large proportion of the biography, yet reports just one activity." Although the section focusses mainly on George Ferguson's 'Hengrove Play Park proposal', it also discusses this year's budget consultation whilst developing upon councillors and GF's personal opinions. It also states protests and petitions that have been held with a picture being used as a visual image of the disagreement.

Wikipedia is for expression, participation and inclusion and as the Mayor of Bristol, people are going to disagree with George Ferguson's decisions, coming to his biography here on Wikipedia to find out further information. As many news agencies have reported about his Hengrove Play Park proposal and budget plans for 2014, people could come to the section to find a non-biased section of George Ferguson's involvement. The section that was deleted had plenty of non-biased information that was sourced and referenced. .

78.149.13.72 said "using Wikipedia to voice opinions about current issues is called "soapboxing". He is correct however the "Hengrove Play Park proposal" is not used for "soapboxing", no longer being bias stating the resolution whilst noting the opinions of counsellors and George Ferguson himself in relation to his proposal. The section uses references for evidence, being truthful and honest by using information simply personally found and referenced by Wormwell themself from online and offline sources. None of the content from the section appears to be Wormwell's personal opinions. All of the information present from the section is from online sources or re-worded from local newspapers discussing the subject of interest.

78.149.13.72 said that the section could be replaced with the statement "Ferguson has made decisions with which some disagree" but this would be an understatement as 11,000 have liked an online petition on Facebook opposing Ferguson's decisions. Furthermore, well-known celebrities along with 2,000 people have signed a written petition. ITV and BBC have reported about Ferguson's decision. None of Ferguson's other proposals have had so much disagreement and public awareness.

It is in the spirit of Wikipedia for editors to collaborate on articles. This statement should suggest a "spirit of collaboration" unlike the previous one. As a result of this, I have subsequently added it again, clearing up all of the minor disagreements that were pending discussion and further agreement.

What do you think about me remaining the "Hengrove Play Park proposal", changing it to "2014 budget consultation", developing the section and discussing other points that were mentioned throughout George Ferguson and his council's budget consultation for this year.

Wormwell (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Allocating so much of the biography of this living person (almost 25% of the content) to such a minor issue (just one item in the 2014-2017 budget proposal public consultation) violates the neutral point of view and undue weight policies. Therefore, this section has to be removed. As this page currently stands, it is the only issue covered during his entire term as mayor to date, which is significantly out of proportion.

Wormwell writes "None of Ferguson's other proposals have had so much disagreement and public awareness." This is not accurate - for example, the residents parking petition had over 6000 signatures and had significant media coverage on both ITV and BBC. Again, this exemplifies that undue weight has been assigned to this relatively minor issue.

Annebristolian (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted this section again because I agree that it gives undue weight to a minor issue and also because it clearly demonstrates bias. For example, it is clear that there was no intention to 'close' the play park (as cited in the section text). It is a matter of opinion whether a reduction in staffing would eventually lead to closure of the park. The core reference is a press release published on the website of a political party. Can Wormwell please respond to the violations mentioned in this post before adding the section yet again.

Marinaswims (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Annebristolian states that the "Hengrove Play Park proposal" section of the biography "violates the neutral point of view" – this is incorrect. The section is referenced and is neutral. All information, quotes and opinions are sourced. None of the content includes my own and other's view of the controversy. Nowhere is it written: "George Ferguson wanted to close the park" or "George Ferguson's proposal makes him an idiot". Some could argue that the section is a summarised and shortened version of Ferguson's previous proposal for the park.

The section would seem "significantly out of proportion" (as Annebristolian stated) due to the general lack of information featured throughout Ferguson's biography. The article has little information present as a result of Ferguson's page not being regularly updated by contributors. If other issues that occurred during Ferguson's term in office were covered, such as the "residents parking petition", the section would no longer appear to be a disproportionate part of the biography.

Annebristolian disagreed that "none of Ferguson's other proposals have had so much disagreement and public awareness". She discussed the "residents parking petition" that "had over 6000 signatures and had significant media coverage on both ITV and BBC". I would like to clarify that "Save Hengrove Park" (a Facebook group opposing Ferguson's proposal) has over 11,000 (!) supporters. There was an online petition that gained 2,000 signatures and many written petitions that were circulating the community. Furthermore, the proposal was regularly featured throughout news programmes and topical debates with George Ferguson regularly expressing his opinion. This amount of support and continuous media coverage should suggest that the Hengrove Play Park controversy has had more disagreement and public awareness than the "residents parking petition".

Marinaswims stated that section is bias and that "it is clear that there was no intention to 'close' the play park (as cited in the section text)". The section clearly states that "local city councillors claimed the decision to cut the staffing could ultimately lead to the closure of the park." The section includes quotes and sources to confirm that it was never Ferguson's intention for the park to potentially close.

Marinaswims states that the "the core reference is a press release published on the website of a political party" however others, including myself, could argue that this isn't the "core reference". Is it a violation for a press release published on the website of a political party to be a "core reference"?

Marinaswims also stated that "it is a matter of opinion whether a reduction in staffing would eventually lead to closure of the park". Yet again, it is made clear in the section that some people thought that the park could continue being open if un-staffed, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents whereas others thought the park would close if un-staffed, including those approximate 11,000 individuals on Facebook and Sylvia Doubell, a Liberal Democrat.

Following my response and involvement with the discussion, I have subsequently added the section again as I do not think it is a violation, awaiting further discussion and potential disagreement.

Maybe the section could be re-worded to resolve the on-going disagreement?

82.38.238.231 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

82.38.238.231 agrees that the undue weight policy has been violated by the addition of this section, yet has re-inserted it. It's not acceptable to say: yes, there is undue weight afforded to this minor political issue, but that's only because no one is writing the rest of Ferguson's biography.

82.38.238.231 also maintains that 11,000 clicks on Facebook indicates that the Hengrove Park issue was more important than other issues so far in Ferguson's mayoral term. This compares apples with oranges and misrepresents the reality of the situation. Doing an apples to apples comparison, the residents parking proposals had (1) more signatures on the BCC online petition (2) was raised more often in cabinet and council meetings with questions and statements (3) had a longer duration (is still ongoing) and (4) without a doubt has had more media coverage than the Hengrove Park protests. For example, the Bristol Post ran weekly articles covering each of the proposed neighbourhoods' feedback to the residents parking proposal.

To present a neutral point of view, a fair and balanced review of Ferguson's time in office should be reported to date in this article (in addition to more detail about the contribution he has made to architecture and Bristol prior to taking office). E.g. Ian Onions Bristol Post article at the end of Ferguson's first year. While this has not been done, singling out one minor issue in Ferguson's biography is in violation of Wikipedia policy and must be removed.

So, to answer your question, no, the section cannot be reworded. Perhaps it should be its own article, if some contributors feel strongly that it should be documented in such great detail in Wikipedia as part of Bristol's recent history. However, it doesn't make sense to have it as more than a footnote in Ferguson's biography of 60+ years, if that. Including it here as it is today is completely out of proportion. Rather than continuing to debate this item, why don't we work together to genuinely improve this biography and leave this text out while we do so.

Annebristolian (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Annebristolian states that "82.38.238.231 agrees that the undue weight policy has been violated by the addition of this section" but this is incorrect and not true. 82.38.238.231 did not agree that section is out of proportion but stated that the 'Hengrove Play Park proposal' addition would seem out of proportion. The user clearly states that the section only appears wrongly sized due to no other political issues being written about and because of the biography having "little information present". This suggests that Annebristolian misinterpreted the user's response or is manipulating aspects of the discussion.

Annebristolian states that "82.38.238.231 also maintains that 11,000 clicks on Facebook indicates that the Hengrove Park issue was more important than other issues". This is an inaccurate interpretation on behalf of Annebristolian (again). 82.38.238.231 clearly stated that the high amount of support and continuous media coverage surrounding Ferguson's recent proposals "should suggest that the Hengrove Play Park controversy has had more disagreement and public awareness", not that it is more "important". Annebristolian also claims that the residents parking proposal "was raised more often in cabinet and council meetings with questions and statements", without providing a source. This is not a discussion about Ferguson's most 'important' proposal so we should stop going down that road.

If some contributors feel so strongly that the residents parking proposal should be documented in such great detail in Wikipedia as part of Bristol's recent history because it is "more important than Ferguson's other proposals", why not add it to the biography? If it was to be added, the section could possibly no longer be accused of being an "undue weight policy", potentially being viewed as a "a fair and balanced review of Ferguson's time in office" by some contributors, ending the disagreement amongst Annebristolian and other contributors.

Annebristolian emphasises her opinion that the section is not a "neutral point of view, a fair and balanced review of Ferguson's time in office". She states that referencing Ian Onions Bristol Post article would make the section a balanced representation but has not attempted to do this, instead almost immediately removing the section after editing Ferguson's talk page. The section is however a neutral point of view with all information being sourced and referenced. Ferguson's not been in office for that long so naturally there would not be many events/happenings to write about. It is unintentional if section fails to appear as a fair and balanced review. The section is not being purposely re-added to reflect Ferguson negatively.

Annebristolian bluntly ends her involvement with the discussion saying "no, the section cannot be reworded". This statement does not suggest a spirit of collaboration although it is in the spirit of Wikipedia for editors to collaborate on articles. The user is continuing to misinterpret information, instead stating unrelated information and fruit and vegetables ("apples with oranges", "Ian 'Onions'" etc.) Annebristolian later went on to remove the section, claiming it is still a violation, suggesting a lack of collaboration, refusing to acknowledge key parts of 82.38.238.231's addition to the discussion.

Please allow time for other contributors to add to the biography's talk page before immediately removing it, claiming the addition is a "violation". If you were to remove the section, you could be considered not to be suggesting a spirit of collaboration, going against Wikipedia's most basic expectations.

Wormwell (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Wormwell states "Annebristolian states that "82.38.238.231 agrees that the undue weight policy has been violated by the addition of this section" but this is incorrect and not true. " This is incorrect and not true. The statement from 82.38.238.231 above is: ":The section would seem "significantly out of proportion" (as Annebristolian stated) due to the general lack of information featured throughout Ferguson's biography." To be accused of "manipulating aspects of the discussion" is unfounded and goes against Wikipedia's most basic expectations of conduct.

Wormwell states: "If some contributors feel so strongly that the residents parking proposal should be documented in such great detail in Wikipedia as part of Bristol's recent history because it is "more important than Ferguson's other proposals", why not add it to the biography?" In fact, that is what I suggested above: "Rather than continuing to debate this item, why don't we work together to genuinely improve this biography and leave this text out while we do so."

Wormwell states "The user is continuing to misinterpret information, instead stating unrelated information and fruit and vegetables ("apples with oranges", "Ian 'Onions'" etc.)" Ian Onions is an established journalist in Bristol and one of the main writers in the Bristol Post. The unrelated information seems to be this statement from Wormwell.

Wormwell states "Annebristolian later went on to remove the section, claiming it is still a violation, suggesting a lack of collaboration, refusing to acknowledge key parts of 82.38.238.231's addition to the discussion." This is incorrect. I offered a comprehensive reply to 82.28.238.231. This statement is an attempt to distract the conversation away from the core issue: having this section included in Ferguson's biography gives it undue weight, violates the overall neutrality of the article and therefore, this section must be removed.

Wormwell states "Please allow time for other contributors to add to the biography's talk page before immediately removing it, claiming the addition is a "violation". If you were to remove the section, you could be considered not to be suggesting a spirit of collaboration, going against Wikipedia's most basic expectations." I have done this. It has been a week and there have not been any other contributions to the discussion. Given this and the clear guidelines for biographies of living people, the section needs to be removed.

Annebristolian (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Although there has been media coverage, the long-term significance of the controversy is still unclear, and according to the source cited the proposal appears to have come from the Liberal Democrats, not from Ferguson. The section looked out of place, and I haven't checked it for neutrality but it appears to have been given undue weight in the article. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be surprising if there was any long-term significance of this issue. The council removed the proposed cut in the second budget proposal. So, overall, the council proposed a budget cut, people objected, RoSPA supported the change, and the council removed the budget cut in the next draft. End of story. The proposed cut being given so much attention here was approximately 0.1% of the total £90 million which had to be cut from the budget, very minor indeed. Annebristolian (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Annebristolian states that Wormwell states that ""Annebristolian states that "82.38.238.231 agrees that the undue weight policy has been violated by the addition of this section" but this is incorrect and not true." This is incorrect and not true."" This is incorrect and not true as Wormwell's statement could truly not be incorrect as the user has quoted Annebristolian's statement; a representation that is correct and true.

Annebristolian states that "The unrelated information seems to be this statement from Wormwell." To be accused of stating unrelated information is unfounded, going against Wikipedia's most basic policies. Every contributor has the right to be involved with a discussion, expressing their opinion whether it is perceived as right or wrong or incorrect or true.

Annebristolian states Wormwell's statements are "an attempt to distract the conversation away from the core issue", appearing to manipulate Wormwell's words. Instead of being suggestive, the user seems quite provocative with their simplistic responses.

Peter James states "the source cited the proposal appears to have come from the Liberal Democrats, not from Ferguson", although there are references out there from Ferguson. Peter James also states "it appears to have been given undue weight in the article" suggesting some users would not view the section as having a due weight policy if adapated or summarised. a Annebristolian states "it would be surprising if there was any long-term significance of this issue". This suggest the user should be "surprised" as a "play date" has been arranged by the organsiers of the "Save Hengrove Park" campaign to celebrate Ferguson's amended proposal, months after the issue seemingly became insignificant. The Facebook campaign of the same name is regularly updated too.

Annebristolian states "overall, the council proposed a budget cut, people objected, RoSPA supported the change, and the council removed the budget cut in the next draft. End of story." However, the section is focused on Ferguson's relation with the park and community during his negatively-perceived budget proposal rather than the lifespan of a budget cut.

To not include controversies on Ferguson's biography would encourage incorrect interpretations of our Red Trousers' time in office.

Wormwell (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to this page violate the neutral point of view and undue weight policies, such as adding so much content about the recent Twitter storm. Also the cited document did not state that he was "forced" to make an apology, as PearceMT stated.

Annebristolian (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Could the user elaborate regarding the relevant "recent changes", of which they have referred to?

82.38.238.231 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why "Speeder"?

The inbox suggests that he has the nickname "Speeder" but it isn't explained anywhere. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He doesn't. However our electric-car-driving, Radio-4-cycling "green" mayor has just been caught speeding, so the usual peanut gallery is having some fun at his expense. It's not a long-term nickname, it doesn't have any substantial use, it doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

POV tag

I introduced a POV tag because the article appears substantially biased against Ferguson, which is particularly unacceptable in the run up to the 2016 Mayoral election.

1. There are a couple of weasel words eg "ploughed ahead".

2. The article is heavily focused on controversy with very little on changes the public might perceive as good.

3. It cites low quality sources for eg calling Ferguson "Junket George". WykiP (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the above: 1. There are a couple of weasel words eg "ploughed ahead". - removed & edited this

2. The article is heavily focused on controversy with very little on changes the public might perceive as good. - The potentially controversial elements are indicated in sections described thus and focus on the issues around the perception of some of George Ferguson's decisions. I've checked and each seems to be well referenced back to reliable sources. Do you have any 'positive' additions you know of that could could add to improve your perception of unbalanced coverage?

3. It cites low quality sources for eg calling Ferguson "Junket George". - I've checked the reliability of the sources and the main one if referenced back to the Bristol Post, the city's paper of record. There were a number of other instances of people referring to him by that moniker, and less reputable sources, but In my view there is enough to justify the inclusion of the name as one in common usage. I have also searched carefully for the nickname "Red Trousers" and I have found little substantial evidence of this in common usage. Is this something anyone else has come across?

On a general matter I an concerned about your comment that it was "substantially biased against Ferguson, which is particularly unacceptable in the run up to the 2016 Mayoral election." Having read the article several times there are a large number of positive biographical statements (e.g. the Arena, charitable work, 20mph zones)as well as those that might be considered as controversial.

Having made these changes and reviewed the article I have removed the POV tag.

AWR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.235.174 (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

- Thank you for the changes you made. They already much improved the article. It remained somewhat biased, thus removing the POV tag was inappropriate without consensus.

- Re your "concern", I would remind you that WP:AGF is a "fundamental principle of Wikipedia".

- The derogatory Junket George label referred back to a broken Bristol Culture link: http://www.bristol-culture.com/2013/09/24/bristol-post-becomes-lifestyle-publication/. I have removed that sentence and link.

- I have made several other changes NPOVising the article. Some issues remain. Why is Ferguson's alleged(?) affair relevant? Why is swearing at an annoying member of the public considered an important aspect of his work as Mayor?

- One omission from Ferguson's Mayoral record is the large price cuts for using the city's bus service, an issue consistently cited by the public as Bristol's #1 (#firstworldproblems) that had persisted for 20 years, through multiple administrations. WykiP (talk) 06:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the above:

Regarding bus fares: First Bus is not a Council owned company and neither it, nor the Mayor have direct control over the fares or the majority of routes. In Council session the Bus companies denied that there had been any "deal" with the Council to reduce fares. Instead they said that the reduced fares had come from a consultation with passengers and partially in response to a well-supported petition by Daniel Farr http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Petition-calls-reduce-Bristol-bus-fares/story-17619677-detail/story.html. Ferguson did sign that petition, but I can't find any other reference to his role in reducing fares. If there is any supportive evidence that could be used to cite this it should certainly go in.

I would suggest that Ferguson's affair is not relevant to him specifically as mayor, but the page is a biography in which his election as mayor is only one element of his life; As such it would be relevant biographical detail e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mellor or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwina_Currie. I would note that the issue of a publicly accountable figure swearing at a member of the public, or a fellow elected representative, is entirely relevant to their political record, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate

AWR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.235.174 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

- It's probably impossible to ascribe effectiveness in triggering lower bus prices between Ferguson, his team and the undoubtedly enormous contribution (acknowledged by Ferguson) of Daniel Farr.

- As I said, the issue was there for 20 years and was the #1 cited concern of Bristolians for at least 3 years prior to Ferguson's election. From what I remember, Ferguson was in negotiations long before Farr got involved. Ferguson said he was confident that First Bus would address the prices. He didn't say why and I've been unable to find the article.

- Bizarrely, this is the perhaps the most compelling source showing that Ferguson influenced First Bus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdVDkJE1N4I

- The Council website itself claims bus prices as a success but how much influence Ferguson has over that I don't know.

- The affair source citation is broken. I've asked for help as to whether it's relevant. WykiP (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

- Re: affair statement, there is apparently no guidance. I'm inclined to remove it for lack of relevance alone. It is estimated that 30-60% of men have affairs during marriage: http://www.salon.com/2011/06/12/infidelity_3/. Secondly, it was at least 15 years ago.

- The swearing stuff I think belongs in a separate category. There was actually a new incident in the last two days. WykiP (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the removal of the affair as it relates to the break-down of the marriage and the separation from his wife. This is relevant information in a biography. The link isn't broken, it's simply a citation to an article not hosted online. Looking at the date I assume it's before the Bristol Post had a web presence.

Regarding the swearing, again this is relevant in a public figure. I agree that it might be best put in as a separate item regarding his character. PearceMT (talk) (UTC)

- Agree that the swearing is relevant. Feel free to edit the new section I created.

- I may be in a minority regarding the alleged affair, and would be happy to concede if so. However, I still think unless it is properly cited, it has to be removed. If the new citation mentions an affair, I can't see it.

- Altogether, this article is massively improved on the POV state it was in before. Good work everyone. Might create a Marvin Rees stub article. WykiP (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

No we do not give WP:UNDUE weight to trivial incidents or string them together to make them appear as something other than trivia. if there has been third party coverage that discusses the overall tone, if there are multiple sources (not just the local paper) that specifically present him "as having a history of X", then we can consider it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

In the light of this discussion, which has helped to improve the article, I see only one POV tag (undue weight) - can this now be removed? The "Public Image" section currently says "At an unveiling of a statue in May 2013, Ferguson used an expletive when responding to repeated questions from a member of the audience. He refused to apologize, stating that the individual had disrupted several public events.[39][undue weight? – discuss]" If there is agreement that this is undue weight I suggest the whole sentence is removed. This would leave a very short one sentence section (which is unsourced) about red trousers - should this also be removed or cited and moved to another section?— Rod ^talk 10:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The "Mayor of Bristol" section still seems to me to be overwhelmingly negative in tone, and unbalanced (for example, by focusing unduly on minor transgressions such as a speeding fine). I looked at the statements in that section, and came up with 6 broadly positive statements, 12 neutral, and 20 or so negative or hostile. I've therefore tagged that section as needing improvement. It's not that I feel that such detailed matters should not be mentioned at all - but we need to aim for a neutral tone, and a balanced overall picture. I assume (I no longer live in Bristol so don't keep up with all the detailed activities of the council or his office) that part of the problem is that all the major political parties are, in one way or another, opposed to him as an "independent", and this is perhaps reflected in media coverage. But, we need to try harder to give a balanced perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

There's been a number of major deletions of large sections by potential sock-puppet accounts set up for the purpose this weekend. Please, just a reminder, entries should not be amended just because you disagree with its content. If properly cited and relevant the presumption should be that it stay and discussion be held on this page over amendments. As this person is up for election at present there are likely to be a lot of attempts to change it in coming weeks, either in good faith, or vandalism. Please can we discuss major changes here first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PearceMT (talk • contribs) 07:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

There have been a large number of changes since the POV tab was added. Is there consensus on this talk page that it can now be removed, or is there need for more additions? I'll wait until noon GMT on the 13th April before removing. Maltaman67 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

In my view - having added the section tag on 7 April - the concerns have been substantially addressed, by PearceMT in particular - thank you. However, I think the recent article move needs some further discussion, and it's disappointing that the change was not canvassed here first. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Article title

The article was moved in this edit on 12 April - without any prior discussion - from George Ferguson (Mayor of Bristol) to George Ferguson (UK Politician). I have some mixed feelings about the move. Although he was notable as an architect and urbanist, and in his political life is not affiliated to a particular party (which most UK politicians are), I can accept the description of him as a "politician". But, surely it should be George Ferguson (politician) or George Ferguson (British politician) (except that there seem to be no other notable politicians of that name elsewhere), rather than the current version with UK and a capital P? Views?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to review the question of the article title following his defeat in the Mayoral election. He has said: "I have had no political ambition beyond making Bristol great... I did my very best for Bristol... and shall continue to do so outside politics for as long as I live." (My emphasis.) It is questionable, at least, whether someone who served one term as an elected but independent political figure should be disambiguated as a "politician". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Ferguson (politician). 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/20110811031112/http://acreg.uwe.ac.uk/hgotuotwoe.asp to http://acreg.uwe.ac.uk/hgotuotwoe.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on George Ferguson (politician). 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/20080404181507/http://www.rwa.org.uk/gferg.htm to http://www.rwa.org.uk/gferg.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on George Ferguson (politician). 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/20150923231045/http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Protesters-angry-controversial-plans-MetroBus/story-22840071-detail/story.html to http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Protesters-angry-controversial-plans-MetroBus/story-22840071-detail/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004094301/http://www.urbannous.org.uk/urban%20design%20group%20award/George%20Ferguson%20PPRIBA.htm to http://www.urbannous.org.uk/urban%20design%20group%20award/George%20Ferguson%20PPRIBA.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP Issues

Whilst practicing my techinal skills I’ve spotted a couple of wp:blp issues under the sub-section Public finances which I want to address.

1. The public finances section combines

And

To support the sentence “Ferguson's management of the public purse has been controversial.”

I believe this is a form of original research known as WP:SYNTHESIS where the author has combined two or more sources to draw a new conclusion.

2. The citation needed tag has been there for over three years. WP:CITATION NEEDED says;

"Do not tag controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced. Remove it immediately!"

Now I’m not saying we should hastily delete it per the above, I think it would be better to find a reliable secondary source for “Questions were raised in the national press over Ferguson's role as mayor on the boards of several Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). Criticism was made of the awarding of considerable sums of public money from those LEPs to companies Ferguson owned.”

But so far I can only find primary sources such as minutes from this parliamentary debate, where Labour’s Clive Lewis (politician) accused Ferguson of crony capitalism for receiving £50,000 for one of his brewing firms. However, I'm weary of using primary sources to support contentious statements about living people. As I mentioned in the template, I Googled articles specifically containing GF and LEPs and apart from the parliamentary minutes most of the results were either based on or mirrored from the WP article in question. Meaning, that whoever added the paragraph about LEPs has sparked an epistemic feedback loop reminiscent of the 2005 John Seigenthaler balls-up. If we are going to include something about the LEP we should at least put it in context i.e, “ During a debate on Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEP’s) Labour’s Clive Lewis (politician) accused Ferguson of receiving £50,000 for one of his own brewing firms while on the LEP board.”

Really though, I think we need to ask ourselves if none of the mainstream publications picked up the story then is it encyclopaedia worthy? The more I think about it the more I think WP:NOTNEWS applies?

In the meantime, I have tagged the section for possible original research in the form of both synthesis and unsourced material.

3. I've also found a hard to verify contentious statement about a living person under [in architecture].

“In December 2014, the Architects Registration Board investigated George Ferguson for using the protected title 'Architect' without being registered on the register of architects per the Architects Act 1997. He admitted he had deliberately let his membership lapse and removed the term from his social media status.“

This is sourced to a paywalled site so it’s quite hard to verify. I’ve had a look on Google to see if there’s an alternative source that we could use but so far I can’t find one. We’re supposed to remove poorly sourced contentious material per WP:BLPRS. Is there an alternative source that we can use? If not I’m going to wait for a reasonable amount of time for other editors to chime in and then remove it.Ch1p the chop (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References