Talk:Alexander Poynton

message: I would love to know why he left the Free Trade Party for the ALP. Dlw22 15:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of Party

message: 1902 according to ,  and Alexander Poynton, but 1904 according to Adam Carr and Division of Grey/Australian federal election, 1903 et al. I'm not particularly fussed over which is correct, i'm simply looking for consistency and of course the truth... but how can we figure that out? Timeshift (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had a quick look in Trove, and I'm inclined to think that 1904 is correct - the 1903 candidate listings I've found list him as a Free Trader, although apparently one quite friendly to Labour even then (). This article has him joining the Labour ranks when Watson became PM (together with David Storrer, which is interesting, although he was certainly still a Protectionist in 1906). I'll have more of a look when I have some more time. Frickeg (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

text: This treasury.gov.au ref makes reference to three historic sources: "Weller (ed) (1975). Van der Hoorn (1988), and a columnist in Punch 11 August 1910, state he became a pledged Labor member in 1902". Ignoring this however and playing devil's advocate, here we come to something unique to SA... against all instinct you need to look past references quoting him as a 'Free Trade' candidate in 1903... the reason being that historically, federal candidates of the SA branch of the National Defence League/Australasian National League were listed as federal Free Trade... and the clincher here is that the NDL/ANL would often not run candidates due to either demographics or popular incumbent, instead endorsing their 'preferred NDL/ANL candidate' - something that has only just clicked for me in Poynton's situation, and could warrant much further research and the need for article rewording. It seems that the most logical truth is Poynton became a "pledged Labor member" in 1902 and ran uncontested in Grey in 1903 with unofficial endorsement from the NDL/ANL/Free Trade. However, a very plausible possibility exists where though Poynton became a "pledged Labor member", his official parliamentary affiliation might not have changed - ie: a "pledged Labor member" might simply mean like any other voter could choose to, he simply commenced Labor membership by signing up and paying the annual membership fee - which when taken literally, the claims and wording used in all above refs are actually correct. Perhaps "official parliamentary affiliation" wasn't even a thing then, and could simply by default be an independent? What a conundrum. Timeshift (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'm missing something here, but don't those references come in a footnote to a definitive statement that he only became a formal Labour member in 1904? It seems clear to me, both from the source you gave and from looking through Trove, that he can only really be considered a Labour member from 1904. Of the references, that Weller one looks interesting (even definitive) and I'd want to investigate it, but Van der Hoorn is just ADB (which, while great, is occasionally wrong) and I don't think we can trust a Punch columnist from half a decade later. As I said everything I've found in Trove classes him as a "Free Trader" (albeit one sympathetic to Labour) at the 1903 election; I have not found a single source that refers to him as a Labour candidate in that election. I don't think SA is actually particularly unique in this regard either - all the states had extra-parliamentary organisations equivalent to the NDL/ANL that endorsed/didn't endorse candidates in much the same way (the 1901 election for example is full of this, especially in NSW where multiple Labour candidates also received "Free Trade" (Liberal & Reform Association) or "Protectionist" endorsement). That is not what I'm seeing in Trove in this case, though. (Official parliamentary affiliation was definitely not a thing in 1903! There was the Labour caucus, and that was it.) As the preponderence of electoral sources also clearly define him as a Free Trader in 1903 (Hughes & Graham, etc.), I think we need contemporary evidence if we're to go against that. Frickeg (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't roll this out any further - we still have much more evidence for 1904 than for 1902. I will also re-highlight that Trove article I linked right at the top, clearly indicating that Poynton was not a Labour member until at least 1904. Frickeg (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I only updated Electoral results for the Division of Grey out of consistency because it was the last remaining vestige. Division of Grey has had Labour forever and a day, and all other articles, members lists, pendulums and national election maps have Labour. Again I did it for consistency, but really, i'm not confident either way... there seem to be multiple WP:RS for both sides. Perhaps someone might want to email or otherwise contact Antony Green, or the Clerk of the House...? Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with 1904 - the sources seem pretty clear to me and I'm not sure I see the need to stew over it more. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Division of Grey was the original holdout, though, until your recent run-through. Do you want to roll them back or shall I? Frickeg (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting wiki content - joined the ALP in 1902 or 1904...?