Talk:Socialist Labour Party (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[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:


Since they are republicans and they favour a united Ireland, it seems highly inappropriate to name this page "Socialist Labour Party (UK)". I've re-named it "Socialist Labour Party (GB)". Incidentally, when I did this I got a message saying there was a "database error", but I ignored it because there didn't seem to be any problem. GrahamN 06:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The (UK) disambiguator is the standard for disambiguating by country.. and their political stance doesn't affect what country they are actually in.. I am not sure it is highly inappropiate... a parallel case is Charles Bronson and Charles Bronson (prisoner). The Welsh Bronson perhaps may not like being labelled "prisoner" but that doesn't stop us labelling him that way. I'd prefer to keep things uniform at (UK), but I don't suppose it is hugely important as long as we have redirects. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:38, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You could say the same about most left wing parties. But they operate in the UK, so thats the best disambiguation that there is. They probably wouldn't mind too much since they even have "uk" in their web adress (http://www.socialist-labour-party.org.uk/)
Other socialist parties with "UK" as a diambig in their Wiki articles:
You could argue that all parties which operate excluively in Great Britain as opposed to all over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should have "GB" instead of "UK" as its disambig (including pro-unionist monarchist parties like The Labour Party (UK), Liberal Democrats (UK)). Saul Taylor 14:18, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about Scottish Nationalist Party (UK), Plaid Cymru (UK), or even Sinn Féin (UK)? In order to standardise, at some point you will have to subscribe to a POV. Consider Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Israel), or, conversely, Likud (Palestine). Attempts at standardisation in a project of this nature are fraught with dangers, and ultimately futile. The world is too wonderfully complex for everything in it to be sorted into neat boxes. And why would we want to do that anyway? When writing an article, the authors should simply pick a unique title that seems to them to be concise, unambiguous and uncontroversial. GrahamN 04:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The examples you give don't actually need disambiguating :-)... but as long as there are appropiate redirects.. I don't care that much and the current location will work fine... course not everyone will agree with me or you! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If a country outside the UK ever has a poitical party called the "Plaid Cymru" then by all mean move the current article to Plaid Cymru (UK) and turn Plaid Cymru into a disambiguation page to distinguish Plaid Cymru (UK), Plaid Cymru (Australia) and Plaid Cymru (Bulgaria). And its not POV to say that the SLP are a party in the Unied Kingdom, the fact that they wish they weren't isn't really the point. UK is far more frequently used and I think standardisation is a good thing unless there are compelling reasons to differ from the norm. Saul Taylor 05:12, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is POV to say the SLP are a party in the UK - of course they are - I just think that SLP (GB) is a better title for the article. I really don't understand why you think "standardisation is a good thing". Readers can only read one article at a time; that article should be made as good as it possibly can be, regardless of what any other articles are like. Standardisation for its own sake is an unnecessary self-imposed handicap. Attempts to standardise a recalcitrant world will inevitably cause problems of one kind or another, and I for one can't see any benefit in it at all. In fact, [coming over all soppy and philosophical suddenly] it strikes me that this irrational desire to compartmentalise and standardise everything and everyone has been a major cause of strife and human misery down the centuries. Why can't we simply be content to acknowledge and record the world's astonishing complexity, rather than fighting against it? Why can't we accept people and things for what they are rather than what we think they should be according to some pre-ordained scheme? I may have drifted from the point here somewhat! Peace and love : ) GrahamN 01:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've got no desire to standardise "everyone and everything", just Wikipedia articles, otherwise we'd end up with all sorts of perculiarities here. Another reason I'm against the name is that "GB" is not a much used name, while "UK" is. Oh, and love and peas to you too. Saul Taylor 02:18, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It makes no sense to have Socialist Labour Party (GB) but Liberal Democrats (UK). In fact, pretty much none of the UK big parties contest seats in Northern Ireland, although the Conservatives have. The Labour Party have even tried to prohibit Northern Ireland people from joining -> so I'm moving this back. Morwen 19:16, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why Graham feels it is odd to have Socialist Labour Party (UK) as the article title? I appreciate that they are republican and don't want the UK to remain a kingdom (and hence would have to change the state's name) - BUT, they do in fact operate in the UK at present, and as has been said by many folk already, it is the standard part of the title for parties needing disambiguation. I appreciate that they also support British withdrawal from Ireland, but they contest elections across the rest of the UK, so it seems nonsensical not to refer to them as the Socialist Labour Party (UK).

By the way, I say this as someone who wholeheartedly supports the withdrawal of Scotland from the UK! Problem is, the fact of the matter is that the UK is still in tact and is the name of the state (or a shortened form, accepted as the given version for Wikipedia currently), so we should use it as the standard.

Morwen said she was going to change it back, but it doesn't seem to have been done yet -> so I'm moving this back. Big Jim Fae Scotland 10:52, Apr 1, 2004

Surely the best way to solve the problem of how to designate the SLP is to look at the practice of other lefty groups in the same country? If you do that you will find that the usual term used is Britain. Thus we have the SWP (Britain) and various other groups describe themselves similarly. Less popular these days is the designation Great Britain due to it's imperialist echos.

That last bit sounds very fishy. The "Great" in Great Britain is a 16th century translation of the French name for the island (Grande Bretagne as distinct from Bretagne) adopted by James I of England/VI of Scotland. Those imperialist echos sound rather invented. I blame the internet for the rise of UK personally :). Pcb21| Pete 16:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not you like it the fact is that leftists find the term great britain to have imperialist echoes and that is the point surely? That the term is a trans;lation of a french term is rather besides the point really after all what is important here is how the various left groups see themselves. And the fact is that few use the term Great britain because they (we) do in fact find it stinks of imperialism. The only exceptions are the SOcialist party of Great britain who've had the name since the year dot and a couple of tiny groups which claim to be the CPGB, a claim no much accepts but them of course.

[edit] right-wing authoritarian?

I'd just like to say to whoever wrote this article, their description of the British Labour Party as "right-wing authoritarian" is unwarranted and hysterical, and that description should be removed. I'd like to challenge the neutrality of this article.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Socialist Labour Party 3.gif

Image:Socialist Labour Party 3.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)