Talk:Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Useful article?[edit]

This hatchet-job of an opinion piece by Quentin Letts might be a useful source for referencing the "controversy" section, if required. DWaterson 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Very useful, thank you, as the article itself seems not to convey the magnitude of the controversy surrounding his initial appointmentJatrius (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispatches[edit]

There was a dispatches programme called Nice work if you can get it It detailed the inner workings of MPs expenses and all the corruption behind it and it ultimately placed the finger on Michael Martin because he blocked the setting up of an independent body to regualte Mps expenses. Unfortunatley I have forgotten the details of this programme. Can anyone else remember these things? http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/nice+work+if+you+can+get+it/839262 Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party Affiliation[edit]

The speaker has no official party affiliation. I've changed it to 'None (pre-speakership Labour)' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.243.54 (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, he is still a Labour MP when he stands in the general election. 195.157.52.65 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it he runs as "Mr Speaker seeking re-election", not "Labour Party", though he is the endorsed candidate of the relevant Constituency Labour Party. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, I think that other parties have not put up a candidate against the incumbent Speaker at a general election: is that not right? Even so, that doesn't alter his (previous/current) party affiliation, and in any case at the last general election, although the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats did not contest Michael Martin's seat, other parties did. Ondewelle (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct - it's a tradition honoured by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The SNP (and other parties) don't acknowledge it, and stood a candidate against Martin last time. Regarding the speaker's political affiliation, by tradition the speaker will resign from their party once elected as speaker (as Martin did when he was elected). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not honoured by Labour - at almost every election since 1935 when there has been a Speaker from the non-Labour benches he has faced a Labour opponent. The Liberals have also stood in the past. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The things one learns from Wikipedia! I went through the Tory Speakers since 1935, and discovered that there also used to be a loose convention that the Speaker's election would be unopposed (i.e. not the election to Parliament, but the election of the Speaker). Apparently Labour broke that convention by standing a candidate against William Morrison. (I gather this wasn't unheard of in the 19th century, but was the first time it had happened in the 20th). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riding roughshod over democracy[edit]

Perhaps someone would like to update this article to mention he allowed police to enter the House of Commons when MPs were away. I'm sure this will develop over the next few days. 195.157.52.65 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

picture[edit]

what a god awful picture! He looks like a bond villain! We so need a better one. I'm no good with images, so I'll leave it for someone else to do (Aurumpotestasest (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There are some photos like this, but we can't use them because they're not freely licensed. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I do think the picture is a little on the evil side. --68.193.246.47 (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture is absolutely dreadful. Why does Wikipedia keep adding these "artistic" black-and-white" photographs? It's a bloody encyclopedia. We just need a clear shot of their face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.236.158 (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no better free image available. We can't just steal images. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV????[edit]

This article is totally biased. You can read who and why -without giving details at all- these MPs want him sacked. We don't even know the Speaker's attitude to this issue. This article is not being handled respecting NPOV protocol. There is not a balance between appraisals and criticisms. If the editors can't follow NPOV, I think the neutrality of this article should be assessed by other members of Wikipedia project.--Merliomar (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t seem biased to me, yes it contains more criticism that praise of Speaker Martin, but that is purely because there is a hell of a lot of criticism out there, and very little (if any) praise, adding this information in is not in violation of NPOV. Both sides should be represented, however we do not have to have equal praise and criticism in an article as there will always be differing amounts of each, it is highly likely that it will contain more criticism as it appears that on Monday he will become the first speaker to voted down in 314 years, though knowing his arrogance he will probably refuse to resign (losing a vote of no confidence will not automatically remove him, there isn’t in fact a current way to get rid of him if he refuses to leave), the only way to get rid of him if he refuses to go may be to dissolve parliament or for him to be arrested for treason. MattUK (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure this above rates as the most NPOV opinion about NPOV. The article is certainly weighted towards his few years in the Speaker's chair rather than, for example, the previous decades he spent working as a politician in Glasgow, given this is a biographical entry and not an article about the May 2009 Speaker's scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.172.165 (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text stating that Martin "often reprimands Labour MPs" needs referencing, at least with newspaper opinion piece with some evidence - I haven't heard anyone defend him on that front and the previous accusations are referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.142.67.193 (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Deeply Troubled[edit]

I have removed reference in the article to the Queen being said to be deeply troubled, because it is indefensible on every level. The citation was a Daily Mail article which does not give its own source of a famously private audience between Queen and Prime Minister, and in any case reported the Queen as being deeply troubled with the likelihood of extremist party representation in the EU, not with the Michael Martin issue. Neither does the citation of Nick Clegg's call for the Speaker to step down make any reference to the Queen, which had been suggested in the Wikipedia article. Encyclopaedias are for reporting facts, not for badly representing reports of tittle-tattle.

As listed below, it is a requirement of Wikipedia that badly sourced material in biography articles on living people are to be removed immediately, hence no advance discussion. Tsuchan (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Daily Mail doesn’t need to give a source, it in itself is a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we do not ask every media organisation to cite it's source in it’s material, indeed that would go against a lot of journalistic principals to have to disclose every source. MattUK (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I've moved this to the bottom if the page, where it should be, not stuck above the info area. MattUK (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for moving this section to the bottom of the page.
  • About sourcing material, like I say, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. The Daily Mail is reputed as a trashy tabloid with journalistic standards to match. It's completely untenable to say that being a newspaper ipso facto makes it a reliable source and therefore extreme discretion should be used at any time before quoting it. Wikipedia's "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" test is assessed with reference to "the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments". The only grounds on which the Daily Mail really passes muster is the legal scrutiny basis, and this carries weight only in articles for which there is a likely legal consequence of transgression. (Doesn't apply to a non-attributable claim about a secret meeting where neither party have a realistic possibility of legal recourse on the basis of accuracy.)
  • But given that - as I said - the Daily Mail article didn't even say what was being quoted, so the reference had to be removed.

Tsuchan (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, I see that my deletion has been reverted, and I believe this contravenes Wikipedia rules. Therefore I will report this incident.Tsuchan (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what is generally regarded as a reliable source is used as a source it should stand as such, it is YOUR OPINION that the Daily Mail is “a trashy tabloid with journalistic standards to match”, that is not a fact, just because you disagree with a newspapers editorial stance (I personally don’t agree with the Daily Mail’s stance on a lot of things) doesn’t mean they are not to be classed as a reliable source, there is someone who disagrees with every organisation in print and broadcast media, that doesn’t mean we should remove every source for some allegation that “they made it up”. The Daily Mail also quotes that Michael Martin MP is the Speaker, however they also do not show a source for this material, so should that be deleted?

Additionally the Telegraph hasn’t given it’s sources for the expenses scandal (other than it has managed to obtain a CD containing “information” from an un-disclosed source, that doesn’t mean we should delete that entire article.

Please go ahead and report my actions if you feel that course of action is justified, I’m sure that my actions wills stand up to the scrutiny of the larger Wikipedia community, and the article can stand as it is. MattUK (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have already reported your actions: particularly because you have twice ignored the points that
    • The Daily Mail article doesn't even say what is claimed in the Wikipedia article
    • The Guardian article doesn't represent Nick Clegg as saying anything whatsoever to do with the Queen leading him to call for the Speaker to stand down, as claimed in the Wikipedia article.
  • On those bases alone, you have already un-deleted material having been warned that it is badly referenced and contravenes Wikipedia policy. I will not waste time discussing the matter further.

Tsuchan (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

With no objections I am closing my proposal in view of the lack of consensus and lack of time before the speech is made. Thank you to everyone who contributed. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added the following text:

"Martin will resign as Speaker on May 19, 2009, after reportedly "in the face of yesterday's unprecedented attacks on his authority on the floor of the House and after losing the trust of the Prime Minister". He is to inform the House of Commons of his decision at 14:30 GMT on that day.[1]" and "though he has decided to retire on May 19, 2009 in relation to his controversial role in the MP's expenses row.[2]" to the introduction. The additions were reverted as "speculation", though WP:SPECULATION says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", which I believe my additions satisfied. As per WP:BRD, I move my additions for discussion for inclusion. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the rumours should stay out until Mr Martin himself clarifies them. At the moment all the rumours are based upon one article from STV [1], which itself uses speculative language. (e.g. STV understands). Martin451 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's 14:30 BST btw not GMT and that only about 2hr from now Bihco (talk) 11:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to sound dismissive, and I apologize if I do, but please can you show me where the various media reports are based on STV? I have taken a look at the various media reports, and they all seem to be confirming the resignation will take place, and are not based on STV's reporting. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, thanks Bihco. :) AdmiralKolchak (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the BBC new page "A spokeswoman for the Speaker confirmed Mr Martin was making a statement this afternoon "about himself" and would be going ahead with the meeting at 1630 BST. Asked whether the Speaker had resigned the prime minister's official spokesman said: "That is a matter for the Speaker." So he may well be resigning or he may well be telling the MP's to F**k off Bihco (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first reports on the BBC ticker cited STV, and ISTR it somewhere else as well (Reuters?). I don't know if they have better sources now, but they don't cite anyone. Martin451 (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording of the BBC rumour is "soon", with rumours of a summer by election. Until we know one way or the other, it should stay out. Martin451 (talk) 12:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary reports, like the BBC ticker, I agree are not best to utilize, but better reports have since come out (like the one above I cited) which haven't stated they have used other news services (they usually do for legal reasons). The Prime Minister's official spokesman hasn't clarified, but Michael Martin 'to resign': first Commons Speaker ousted in 300 years, Speaker Michael Martin to resign this afternoon, Michael Martin jumps before he is pushed: Doomed Speaker will resign today to name but a few have said it is certain he will announce his resignation today. Therefore, as per WP:SPECULATION, I think we can include some text about his impending statement that he will resign. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 12:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them just state "Mr Martin's spokeswoman said: 'I can confirm that the Speaker is making a statement this afternoon and that it is about himself.'" so only Mr Martin know what he is going to say Bihco (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they don't just say that. The spokeswoman's remark is almost a tag-on to statements like "Michael Martin will become the first Commons Speaker in more than 300 years to be forced out this afternoon. In a historic statement to MPs at 2.30pm, he will announce his resignation" and "Michael Martin is to resign today as Speaker of the House of Commons as the controversy over MPs' expenses claims its biggest scalp." They sound very certain, and spokesmen or women typically don't preempt what the person they are representing will say. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since Martin will make his speech in less than 55 minutes, I think keeping open my proposal is rather unneeded. Any objections to closing? AdmiralKolchak (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

References

  1. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6318255.ece
  2. ^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics

the first Speaker since....[edit]

So what? Just because it's x hundred years since the last Speaker was forced out of office, so what? I suggest this shoudl be changed to ' this in unusual, the last was in xxxx. This is less 'outraged from Tunbridge Wells'. I'll wait for reactions but make this chaneg in 48 hours depending on responses78.147.180.220 (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable. I'm not sure that "...the last was in x" establishes notability any better than "...x hundred years since it last occurred", but I've no objection to the change. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite different, if subtle. 'X years since last occurred' sound churlish whereas 'it last happened in X' is neutral POV in comparison. Glad you agree. 78.147.180.220 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see (and agree even more!) I also think giving the date, rather than forcing the reader to do mental arithmetic, is better. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article mentions that John Trevor was previously forced out "the" office, perhaps it should mention he was forced out the English one; the British one wouldn't exist for another 12 years. 81.170.63.186 (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I have made a similar point in the discussions page of the article Glasgow_North_East_by-election,_2009. It is quite irrelevant that John Trevor was forced out from the position of Speaker of the English parliament, since the English parliament was dissolved in 1707. It should read something like "This has been the only time in the history of the parliament of the United Kingdom since its inception in 1707 that a Speaker was forced from office. Something similar happened in 1685 when....." --Mathsman91 (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, we should limit ourselves to what the reference says - and what it says is "...becoming the first Commons Speaker to be effectively forced out of office for 300 years" (my emphasis). The BBC are correct, as much as Martin is Speaker of the House of Commons, an institution which pre-dates the Act of Union. Could I suggest that the text should be:

In a statement made on 19 May 2009, Martin announced he would resign from his position as Speaker of the House of Commons effective 21 June 2009.[ref] The last Commons Speaker forced from office was John Trevor in 1695 (prior to the creation of the UK parliament, making Martin the first Speaker to be forced out of office in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.[citation needed]

Thoughts? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liking that much better! On the subject of the BBC's statement, although strictly correct, I think they oversimplified their statement. But your suggestion at least rectifies any confusion between the U.K. parliament and the English parliament (even though the then-U.K. and the current U.K. are not the same...). Thanks, --Mathsman91 (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think both both This flag once was red and Willski72's suggestions are an improvement. My own version on Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is "... this being the first such removal in the United Kingdom (though John Trevor was removed from the then English House of Commons in 1695)". I'd have changed it to any of these 3, if it weren't for the cursed semi-protection :) 81.170.63.186 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about having:

'In a statement made on the 19th May 2009, Martin announced he would resign from his position as Speaker of the House of Commons effective 21st June 2009. This will make him the first Speaker to be forced out since the creation of the UK parliament in 1707. It has been over three hundred years since Sir John Trevor, the last Commons Speaker required to give up office, was forced out in 1695.'

Its probably not as good and its three sentences rather than two but i think it makes it easier to understand. (My personal opinion of course and no disrespect to my good, previously red, flag friend!)Willski72 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) I hav tried to make it easier to see, it was all bunched up before sorry!Willski72 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forced from office[edit]

Technically, he wasn't forced. He resigned. He could have stayed on. It would have created an almighty stink, but technically, he could have resisted calls and even ignored a proposed vote of no confidence. As such, the decision to go was his own. Cameron is quoted as saying "I think it was, in the end, the right thing for him to do because obviously he'd lost the confidence of the House of Commons" (emphasis mine) and not it was the right thing to be done to him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.14.112.203 (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he couldn't have stayed on. (GranvilleHouston (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

84.14.112.203, I was thinking the same thing. Unlike Sir Trevor, no vote was made on a no confidence motion - he wasn't "forced out" by this. But some MPs had signed a no confidence motion (if it got enough signatures, it would have been put to a vote). I've made this change to reflect this. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labour MPs said at the time that he had been forced into resigning by the confidence motion. (92.11.198.244 (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Lead[edit]

Doesn't the current lead suffer from recentism? It doesn't mention when he became speaker or anything else he is notable for, only the current scandal and resignation. I think that needs balancing. Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the lead a bit, moving a long bit about the resignation into the body of the article. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead pic.[edit]

It makes him look very evil. Hes not that bad...Saladin Bakr (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Voice of a madman) AH but you did not know! Tis whispered in the dark corridors that he is one of Count Draculas most favoured (stress on favoured) children. Ay my friend, now you understand....He be a vampire and nought but garlic/a wooden stake/Nick Clegg can kill him!!!!!Willski72 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't find any better, freely-licensed images. Computerjoe's talk 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave bond to me--82.17.80.241 (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make him look at all evil. What does an evil person look like? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal[edit]

I suggest we move the page to Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn, which would follow naming conventions on peers. Obviously, Martin is well-known without his peerage, but the article currently uses "(politician)" for disambiguation. I say the peerage would preferable as a dab. What does everyone else think? -Rrius (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the lack of opposition, I did so. -Rrius (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party affiliation[edit]

Edited to correct the reference to him as a Labour peer. He's not, and never was - he's a Crossbench peer [2], as former Speakers of the Commons tend to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychonomy (talk • contribs) 08:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 the move request was: not moved. No consensus that primary topic has been established. Born2cycle (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn → Michael Martin — Relisted. harej 08:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This person is clearly the best known Michael Martin, recently Speaker of the UK House of Commons who was force from office over the MPs' expenses controversy. Following discussions at WP:NCROY we may not need the peerage title. The one person with a similar name who is of comparable notability is the Irish Foreign Minister, but his is really a different name, although he should be mentioned on the disambiguation page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose The Irish foreign minister is Micheál Martin, and Micheal Martin redirects there. I do not think it desirable for two articles to be within a typo of each other, unless avoiding it would cause serious loss. I do not see that here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you are on about. We already have 2 articles within a typo of each other, "Micheal Martin" and "Michael Martin". The only issue is whether the latter should be a disambiguation page or an article on the politician. PatGallacher (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Two articles, not an article and a redirect (it is possible that Micheal Martin should be a dab page, but that's a separate issue). Nobody is going to type Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn for Micheál Martin by accident. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may still have misunderstood the issues here. At present Michael Martin is a disambiguation page, not a redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the possibility of misspelling of another title doesn't affect this article's status as the primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Even if he is the best known person of the name, he is not so overwhelmingly so as to justify giving him this special priority. Since there are several articles on people with the same name the natural way to deal with it is to use the page with just that name as a title as a disambiguation page, as is now the case. 79.123.72.113 (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, which undergound cavern have you been trapped in for the past five years? (It's the large Scottish bloke with glasses who used to make a mess of running the Commons before they got rid of him as a scapegoat in the expenses scandal. You must have heard of him; and if you really haven't, calling his article "Baron something" isn't going to help you identify him either.)--Kotniski (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Michael Martin is quite a common name, with no likelihood that any of those currently mentioned on the DAB will ever become the primary meaning. The DAB should be at the unqualified name. Andrewa (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Photo[edit]

Is there any chance of using another photo, rather than File:Michael Martin MP.jpg? This photo is 'artistic', but the lighting makes it hard to make out even basic facial features; I wouldn't recognise him on the street based on this photo. --jftsang 22:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other free images available. There is no justification for taking one that doesn't belong to us given the existence of this image. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Martin, Baron Martin of Springburn. 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:

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) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy of certain lines[edit]

  • In the 2005 general election, he stood in the new constituency of Glasgow North East, where three quarters of children living in the constituency are classed as being in poverty.
    Is this relevant to the BLP article? Stormy clouds (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

where did Michael Martin die? did not mention any where — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khoshhat (talk • contribs) 14:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free image[edit]

As we have a free image what is the justification for using a non-free image @Robin S. Taylor:? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 13:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the Photo, Lead Pic. and picture section above, several Wikipedians raised concerns about the poor quality of the one free image we found. The photograph is in monochrome, with half of Martin's face in shadow and the top of his head cut off. The purpose of a graphic at the top of the article (whatever its copyright status) is to provide visual identification of the subject, for which task SouthbankSteve's dark crop is clearly inadequate. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just half a face and some shirt ruffles.
IMO this is not a justification to use a non-free image. We need to only use non-free images when there are no free images available and in this case there is a free image available. Copyright laws are made for a good reason and we are going beyond the boundaries here. Where do you draw the line? IMO well the other side of this free image, it isn't perfect but it does illustrate Martin. The fact that it is black-and-white is completely irrelevant, so are lots of perfectly acceptable images we use. If there were some policy rejecting black-and-white images and demanding unfree colour images instead that would be a different matter but there aren't any. About 30% of his face is obscured but as he is still recognisable this smacks of wanting to use an unfree image with no justification. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that there is nothing in the above threads to justify using a non-free image. We can't just take images that don't belong to us just because two or three editors don't like the free image. That isn't how it works. How it works is we can use unfree images only when no free image is available. There is nothing int ehse threads to contradict this and certainly no consensus to use an unfree iamge when a free one is available. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Martin,_Baron_Martin_of_Springburn&oldid=1217223734"