Talk:People Before Profit–Solidarity

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

Colour

Shade of red is not distinctive enough and especially when next to the

People Before Profit Alliance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranníocóir (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Irish language name

This shouldn't be included per

WP:IMOS and by extension from the consensus here. Unless of course it's in common use, in which case there'd be references to cite. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Why would those be relevant?
WP:IMOS doesn't say you cant give the name of a party or whatever in Irish. And the consensus you linked only applies to NI and unionist parties, AAA-PBP are neither of those two things.Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
No references? Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't they be relevant, Apollo? "If there is no commonly used Irish version, it is not appropriate or encyclopaedic to "invent" such names, as this constitutes
WP:RS) and zero news result. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Also - I know I asked you to start using edit summaries, but plainly false ones such as "per WP:consensus" shouldn't be used. When two people are reverting you, you clearly don't have consensus. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What section are you quoting from? If that quote is not taken out of context then fair enough. Not necessarily, some people like to make a lot of noise. Anyway Alfie reverts every edit I make in an attempt to annoy. She follows me around everywhere. Just look at her edit history it is mostly her revering my edits or editng on pages that she has never edited on just after I do. Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Takes two to tango, Apollo, I've seen you doing the same to Alfie's edits. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Only on pages I actually have on my watchlist. I don't stalk her edits like she does to me. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Irish name appears on the Oireachtas website [1] and in Irish-language media:
You're missing the point it needs to be commonly used in English-language media. It isn't. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Members

The citations provided for the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party being 'members' of this party, do not specifically claim either to be members or officially ingratiated into this party. Accurate evidence needs to be provided for specific claims. Helper201 (talk) 11:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SP is a member of AAA and SWP is a member of PBP. Apollo The Logician (talk) 11:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And your evidence for either of these claims? Helper201 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I already told you see the page of the parties.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have explained before, members of one political party running under another does not mean that party is then a member of the other political party. For example, if all Irish Labour Party candidates stood under the Social Democrats for one or two elections, that would not mean that from that moment hence forward the Irish Labour Party is a member of the Social Democrats. You are trying to extract specific claims out of these claims, where no specifically relevant evidence is provided to support your specific points. Helper201 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion doesn't matter. Anyway I added a source.Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with my opinion. Its whether or not the claims are accurate. Helper201 (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a source. Apollo The Logician (talk)
If you are referring to the source, "GERARD HOWLIN: Elitist far-left has gained traction but its fascism is affront to democracy", I still wouldn't say this provides sufficiently accurate evidence for your specific 'members' claim. However I will see if anyone else cares to weigh in with their thoughts. Helper201 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they really aren't members and only ran under the party name then surely you will be able to provide a source for this claim? Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to claim it to be one way or the other, I am just making sure your claim is accurate. You can't go off the basis of claims needing to be disproved in order to be removed. On that basis Wikipedia would be full of tones of nonsense content that would take an age to go through bit by bit and disprove every point someone comes up with. Helper201 (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't provide a source then you have no grounds to object to the claim.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to read back through my messages again. Of course you can object to it. Please just read what I said again. On the basis of what you're saying anyone could make wild claims and assertions with dubious or nonexistent evidence which would be hard to disprove. For example, I could say a famous politician secretly believes he or she is a living piece of cheese, ridiculously right? But how would you disprove it without any evidence to the contrary? See? It just gets ridiculous needing to disprove all claims believed to be dubious, or non evidence based claims. All non specific assertions can be challenged for accuracy until a consensus is formed or new or better evidence is provided. Helper201 (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different situation. There is evidence supporting the claim, there is none in your analogy. If it is The case as you outlined above then obviously there would be sources stating it to be the case. There isn't, therefore you have no grounds to doubt the claim.Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this situation I just don't see how the evidence you have provided supports your specific claim of these parties being members of the AAA-PBP. It just seems to indicate these parties have been present within each individual party, not that the two are officially members of the AAA-PBP. No where does it specifically state that. Therefore if it doesn't specifically support your claim, I can most certainly doubt your claim from what I've seen. Helper201 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again there would be evidence for that if it was the case, there is none. Here's another source http://www.socialistworkeronline.net/about-the-swp/Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Name

"Solidarity"..[1] As there may be yet another name by the election I am not gonna trouble myself changing anything on the Wiki. Wikimucker (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "New Name".

Name of article

The article name is currently Solidarity–People Before Profit (with what appears to be an elongated dash between 'Solidarity' and 'People'). I'm not sure, without looking it up, how to even create that character, as it doesn't normally appear on an Irish keyboard. Should the article be moved/renamed to Solidarity-People Before Profit (with a standard Irish-keyboard dash between the two words)? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: some points:
  1. The character is
    en-dash and can be entered using the Help:Edit toolbar
    , selecting "Wiki markup" from the Insert dropdown under the editbox.
  2. It's nothing to do with Irish keyboards versus some flavour of foreign keyboard; as far as I (and the Wikipedia article linked) know, no keyboard has an endash key. Typescripts used two hyphens to simulate one endash.
  3. MOS:DASH (as decided in 2011
    ) says...
    In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in
    eye-hand span
    .
    ...and the existence of redirect
    Solidarity-People Before Profit
    minimises the importance of the question of moving the article.
  4. There is tension between
    WP:COMMONNAME
    . Many online sources are less fastidious than Wikipedia about distinguishing the hyphen from the endash, and a significant subset of hardcopy printed texts do likewise. Do we go with hyphen per commonname even if this is a result of ignorance or technoilogical limitations which the sources have but Wikipedia does not have? Perhaps (ideally but impractically) we would check only sources that use endashes somewhere in the text, and see whether, within those sources, "Solidarity–People Before Profit" is written with an endash or hyphen.
  5. dash prefix:Wikipedia talk:Article titles/ shows previous discussion of dashes in Article titles. I don't know if a consensus has emerged on question #4 as to when COMMONNAME takes priority.
  6. FWIW I found pages on the PBP website with PBP-Solidarity and Solidarity/PBP
jnestorius(talk) 17:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - you learn something new every day! My own opinion would be to go with COMMONNAME but the issue is minimised with redirects all right. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a "Party" or an Electoral Alliance.

Solidarity PbP is a registered political party for the purposes of contesting Dáil European and Local Elections. This is not at issue.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/main/documentation/Register-of-Political-Parties-20-November-2017.pdf

However its only 'members' are election candidates and elected candidates. Otherwise from what I can see everyone else is a member of the Socialist Party or of the SWP. Furthermore failed candidates surely revert back to being what they were all along, a member of the Socialist Party or of the SWP.

To conflate matters further a member of the SWP can partake in the "People Before Profit Alliance" without being a member of a "People Before Profit Alliance" party as such. This SWP member could then go on to run for Solidarity PbP meaning that they are members of one party, an alliance, and then an alliance masquerading as a party and all at the same time.

The preamble/introduction to this article is IMO wrong in fact in its describing Solidarity PbP as a fully fledged party without some qualification as to its ultimate composition.

In many countries minor parties combine in this way for some form of electoral advantage (EG typically to get over a 5% threshold in a constituency wide poll) or in the Irish case mainly to hit the 7 member speaking rights threshold in the Dáil. It would be more correct to call this synthetic entity an Electoral Alliance which is Registered as a Political Party rather than A Party and the fact that they are registered as a Party is simply because there is no mechanism to register an Electoral Alliance of small parties in Irish Law...and indeed we have the mythic Team Lowry > http://michaellowry.ie/team/ masquerading as independents down in Tipp.

I would point out that its linear predecessor in 2010-2012 was the United_Left_Alliance which is described there as an Electoral Alliance , quite correctly to my mind. 

I would be interested in hearing other editors views on this, no mad rush. Wikimucker (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Examiner as a source Some editors seem to think that the Irish Examiner is not a reliable source as they keep reverting this paragraph every time it is introduced. Most articles on politics rely on newspaper quotes for their sources. It clearly sets out the potential bias of the source so nothing is hidden.

"A columnist for the Irish Examiner newspaper, who was a former special advisor for Fianna Fáil, has described its predecessor, the AAA, as being elitist and far-left.[1]

It is also used as a source in articles on other political parties in Ireland. For example:[2] Why should this be any different? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know the problem is not with the Irish Examiner, so please don't set up that straw man. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So your problem is with the man? Shouldn't the discussion be about what he says rather than who he is? 22:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
A former advisor to Fianna Fail criticizes another political party! Such bias clearly fails WP:NPOV. Spleodrach (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a circular argument. Demonstrate how it violates neutrality to have views from diferent sides. I would have thought that that was the essence of a balanced article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming that is balanced to have a quote from member of Party A criticising Party B? Spleodrach (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Have a look at references 85 and 86 on the Sinn Féin article where Michael McDowell slags off the leadership. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you are suggesting we should go down the whole 'he said', 'she said' route? Your entire premise is that a person from Party A dislikes Party B and has said mean things about them. That is a pretty poor argument. Spleodrach (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The alliance has been described as a "remarkable abeyance of decades-old sectarian conflict between the Socialist Workers Party underlying PBP and the Socialist Party underlying AAA.""Elitist far-left has gained traction but its fascism is affront to democracy". 2016-10-26. Retrieved 2018-06-13.
  2. ^ [https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/second-labour-councillor-resigns-claiming-party-is-on-the-road-to-oblivion-873905.html%7Ctitle=Second Labour councillor resigns claiming party is on the 'road to oblivion'|last=McConnell|first=Daniel|work=Irish Examiner|date=5 October 2018|access-date=6 October 2018}}

Election candidate labels

I think election candidates should be listed as

Solidarity–People Before Profit footnoted as being the label on the ballot paper. There is also scope for Category reorganisation. Currently there is Category:Socialist Party (Ireland) (with subcats) but no Solidarity or People Before Profit categories and only Category:Solidarity–People Before Profit TDs. jnestorius(talk) 16:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

For example this version distinguishes Carah Daniel from Oghenetano John Uwhumiakpor, which this version doesn't (though both versions have other defects). jnestorius(talk) 16:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:People_Before_Profit–Solidarity&oldid=1204892314"