Talk:Scottish Socialist Party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Various SSP's
Saulisagenius's edit has made this page look daft. Although he has put the various SSP's into chronilogical order, surely the current SSP deserve to be the main body of the article? After all, that is most likely the SSP people will be looking for, and it is what the articles that link here refer to. Unless people object strongly (and I shall probably disagree with them if they do), I am gonna change things back.
Big Jim Fae Scotland 26 March, 2004, 00.57
- I agree that the curent SSP should be "main body of the article" and it still was even after my last edit. If someone reads my version [1] then they can see imediately that there have been three parties of the same name over the years, but with the current edit they would have to read the whole article before knew that. So for the majority of people looking for the current SSP it doesn't really matter either way but for the minority looking for the previous two it does matter alot. Saul Taylor 02:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hi Saul. If they are looking for the other parties then surely they will that there have been othere SSPs already? I still feel justified in my edit, although apologies for saying your edit was daft (it was v late when I wrote that, and was tired). Didn't mean to cause offence in any way, and I can see your logic in trying a chronological order, but I still think this is superceded by my argument above. Any one else care to comment? Big Jim Fae Scotland 15:47, 26 Mar 2004
- Actually I don't think chronological order is an important issue. How do you feel about this proposal Talk:Scottish Socialist Party/Proposal?. It would require moving the details of the first SSP to a new stub article. Saul Taylor 23:42, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Saul, good idea mate. Only change I would make in the note at the top is the current party were formed in '98, NOT '88. Big Jim Fae Scotland 09:39, 27 Mar 2004
- Thanks for catching my mistake. Since no one object I have now implemented my proposal, I think the article looks a lot better now than either of the other previous versions. Saul Taylor 14:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Why is the ideology said to be democratic socialism rather than Trotskyism or Marxism? I thought that Militant, SWP, CWI etc were all Trotskyist groups? 217.44.206.197 19:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
- Because democratic socialism is their stated aim. Most members of the group are independents who are not members of any of these Trotskyist groups and presumably are not all Marxists, let alone Trotskyists. Besides, the main platform is probably best described as ex-Trotskyist. Warofdreams 11:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Election box metadata
This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.
These links provide easy access to this meta data:
- Template:Scottish Socialist Party/meta/color Content:
- Template:Scottish Socialist Party/meta/shortname Content: Scottish Socialist
[edit] "Left wing" vs. "far left"
There seems to be a developing edit war over whether the SSP is best described as a "left-wing" party or a "far-left" party. I believe left-wing is more appropriate, for two main reasons. First, it seems more accurate, as the Wikipedia far left article characterizes the far left as less willing to work within the current institutional framework, giving as examples anarchists, Maoists and Trotskyists. The SSP, by contrast, has a democratic socialist ideology and several MSPs. Additionally, the article notes that "far left" is often used pejoratively within the English-speaking world, raising concerns about WP:NPOV. I'll standardize the article to "left-wing" (it currently uses both terms) and will revert any further warring unless these comments are discussed. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 06:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Criticisms
It is very important that criticisms are sourced. For organisations still in existance, the situation is similar to that described at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence in biographies of living persons. Besides, while it is of course true that many groups have criticisms of the SSP, those listed are the criticisms made by the SWP in particular. Warofdreams talk 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think the "Groups such as" opening makes it clear that criticism of the SSP is not restricted to the SWP, even though their statement is what's being discussed in the paragraph. I like Warofdreams's version. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with this is that I am not a member of the SWP and I hold this view, as do many of the Left that I talk to who are not members of the SWP as do many who split with the SSP lots of whom are not members of the SWP. So the statement is currently not currect and needs to be amended so that it acknowledges this. I am happy to experiment with different forms of wording until we reach agreement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand how this assertion in any way contradicts the current wording. Could you explain? Warofdreams talk 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't, now, because I have reworded it so it is factually correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fashion1 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Republicanism in Scotland
Would any of the editors of this article be interested in starting up the Republicanism in Scotland article? For examples of the layout and scope of articles of this type, please see Category:Republicanism. --Mais oui! 12:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)