Talk:Builders Labourers Federation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Builders Labourers Federation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Australia: Politics Low‑importance

	Australia portal Builders Labourers Federation is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Organized Labour Mid‑importance

	Organized Labour portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

No mention of the gross corruption? The conviction for fraud of Norm Gallagher?

You are welcome to put it up. But try to be detailed. The BLF never had its day in court because an Act of Parliament destroyed them, not the courts.Dankru 11:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've put in some references as to leave it out is absurd. An encyclopedia can never give all details. I've also linked to the page on Gallagher.--Jack Upland 05:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apostrophes?

The current punctuation of the article title is puzzling. Why is there an apostrophe in Labourers', but not one in Builders? Both words appear to be used as possessives, but Commonwealth English has a tendency to drop the apostrophes in possessives when they're part of a title. (This sometimes happens in the US, too.) I followed the link to the Queensland BLF, and they don't use an apostrophe in either word. Personally, I would choose correctness and put both the apostrophes in; it would also be reasonable to follow the organization's own usage (as far as I know from the link) and leave them both out. But why put one in and not the other? Has that been the way it's historically spelled by the BLF? --Reuben 03:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben, I have made a judgment call on this one. You're right, in part. I believe it was orginally an apostrophe after the Builders', because the labourers were really working for the builders and hence possessive tense used. But the BLF themselves do not use apostrophes so this should be adopted. Dankru 10:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that explains it. I never would have guessed that. --Reuben 15:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this needs to be re-openned for discussion. I came across a book in my collection of songbooks - Builders' Labourers' Song Book Published by Widescape International and the BLF, 1975. ISBN 0869320106. Throughout the book it always uses the apostrophes after <Builders> and <Labourers> whenever the name of the union is used. The full name of the union was: Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders' Labourers' Federation--Takver 13:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Builders Labourers Federation. 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/20050724084930/http://www.vulgar.com.au/renton.html to http://www.vulgar.com.au/renton.html

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) 08:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

The introduction says the BLF "existed from 1911 until 1972, and from 1976 until 1986". But didn't the federal intervention against Mundey etc happen in 1975?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]