Talk:Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present)

message: Have edited the first paragraph to reflect that David Owen's "continuing" SDP is not the same entity as the original SDP formed in 1981. The Liberal Democrats are the legal successor party to both that and the original Liberal Party, and that fact should be reflected in the article. Flagboy 11:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Should we move this article to SDP (UK, 1988)?  Despite all the bad feeling along the way, this has turned into a much better article. The extra detail about the Independent SDP is particularly interesting. Mpntod 12:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move this article?

message: I have undertaken a full-scale copyedit of the article to:
*try to make it more neutral,
*bring it into the Wikipeida style (e.g., sub-heading, capitalisation)
*improve (in my opinion) the writing style and grammar.
If you disagree with any of my edits, or think that you can do even better, please edit individual portions of the article instrad of reverting the whole lot. A complete reversion will restore grammatical errors and things that are not consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Here are some of the more important edits that I have made and why:
*The Road To Bootle > The road to Bootle The Manual of Style says that words in sub-heading should not be capitalised, except for the first word and proper nouns.
*Secondly, they had in Dr David Owen the one thing the Liberal Democrats lacked (until the arrival of Paddy Ashdown) - a charismatic leader that looked & acted the part of a potential prime minister in waiting. > Secondly, David Owen was a charismatic leader who looked and acted the part of a potential prime minister. The Liberal Democrats lacked a leader of Owen's stature until the arrival of Paddy Ashdown. This was an awkard sentence for a number of reasons:
**"&" is not used in formal writing - use "and". 
**people are normally referred to as "who" instead of "that"
**"potential prime minister in waiting" is redundant. Did he have the potential to be prime minister, or only the potential to be prime minister-in-waiting? 
**I have broken up the sentence to make it easier to follow by moving the LibDem stuff into a separate sentence. 
**this was the third time in the article that David Owen's name is linked. The Style Manual discourages repeated linking.
**"the one thing the Liberal Democrats lacked" -- The one thing? I thought they also lacked the financial support of a wealthy supermarket magnate.
*call it a day > dissolve the party "Call it a day" is very colloquial for an encyclopedia, and may not be understand by a non-native speaker of English. I have changed this to "dissolve the party" to reflect the more formal style of an encycolpedia. If this is not the correct characterisation of what they voted to do, please change it to the correct description.
*ironically led by the very Jack Holmes > led by Jack Holmes Let's let the readers decide if there is irony here. there is no need to tell them what to think about this. "the very" is unnecessary. 
*The Neath result proved that a greatly reduced SDP could continue to live & fight to another day. > The Neath result proved that a greatly reduced SDP could continue to be a viable party without David Owen. This is pretty florid language. I think that the replacement is clearer, and gets to the real point in a less dramatic way.
*There has been a recent upturn in their fortunes with the announcement that Councillor Christine Allerston is the new Mayor of Bridlington for 2005/2006. > Councillor Christine Allerston is the new Mayor of Bridlington for 2005/2006. The old version sounds like political boosterism. The new version conveys the same information to the reader without intereting it for her or him.
*The party also still has councillors > The party has councillors "also still" was awkward and unnecessary wording.
*The "Newts" seem set to remain a part of British politics for some time yet (deleted) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
*...but like many minor British parties they are unlikely to contest Parliamentary elections when what resources they possess are more likely to yield results at local council level. > The SDP, like many minor British parties, is likely to focus its resources at local council level were they are more likely to win seats than in Parliamentary elections. I re-wrote this sentence for clarity and simplicity while retaining the key information.
And if anyone is interested in reading about a Canadian version of two parties merging into three parties, see the Progressive Canadian Party article. Ground Zero | t 17:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: The hat line on the article indicates "This article is about the party that existed from 1981 until 1988. ..." yet the article has the date 1990 in the title and appears to still be operating. Someone who knows the subject needs to correct the problem.
Keith D 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused? 

message: :Image:SDPLogo.jpg 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) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SDPLogo.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Social Democratic Party (UK, 1990–present). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060105123951/http://www.parliament.uk:80/documents/upload/m12.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m12.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141227023636/http://www.bridlington.gov.uk/index.php?id=rayallerston to http://www.bridlington.gov.uk/index.php?id=rayallerston
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141204220636/http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/council/elections-and-voting/elections/ward-elections/ to http://www2.eastriding.gov.uk/council/elections-and-voting/elections/ward-elections/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150509052819/http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk:80/sdp-principles.php to http://www.socialdemocraticparty.co.uk//sdp-principles.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The vote figure and share % for the 1992 United Kingdom general election quoted here seem quite high. They are the same as in the 1992 election article, but as I noted on its talk page I am concerned that they seem to include the votes won by the defeated incumbent MPs Rosie Barnes in Greenwich and John Cartwright in Woolwich. However, neither was a member of this incarnation of the SDP. When the 1988 split occurred they did go with David Owen to the anti-merger SDP, but when it failed in 1990, they sat as Independent Social Democrats and this is the label they used in 1992. Dunarc (talk) 23:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  1992 election vote figures 

message: Hi everyone,
I've just looked at the SDP figure for local government. It says two, however there is no evidence to suggest that on the citation linked. On their site, it only lists there as being one councillor (https://sdp.org.uk/people/). Can someone check up on this? I don't want to edit as I may have just missed something.
Many thanks,
Wikieditor123000
:Agreed. Needs updating following May 2019 local elections. Sumorsǣte (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  SDP Local Government 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jack Frost (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 March 2021 

message: With the info-box, couldn't the party be described as Christian Democratic? 
As per the Christian democracy page, it states: 
* "This has meant that Christian Democracy has historically been considered centre-left on economics and centre-right on many social, and moral issues.". 
Which this party is, and is referred to in the political position info-box section of this party. 
Plus, this party supports a social market economy, and Christian democratic parties support that. As well stated it being stated the Christian democracy page: 
* "Christian democrats support a "slightly regulated market economy", featuring an effective social security system, a model also known as a social market economy."
I would also like to mention, a party's name doesn't have to equal the party's ideology. It is totally irrelevant. There is even a party called Social Democratic party called the Social Democratic Party (Portugal), and isn't even Social Democratic. So this party wouldn't be the first to be named Social Democratic, and isn't "truly" social democratic. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It should not be described as Christian democratic without at least one strong referenced third-party source, i.e. not the party itself, otherwise that is clearly WP:SYNTH. (FWIW, in actuality the party a right-wing populist party in the mould of UKIP or the Brexit Party, despite how it names and describes itself).-- Autospark (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiscal: Centre-left + Social: Centre-right = Christian Democracy?  

message: References to the SDP's own website for policies have all been marked as 'third-party source needed'. I'm not sure if these are required as they are statements of fact rather than viewpoints or opinions, but I am not a frequent editor on Wikipedia so I wanted to discuss before changing.
To me it seems akin to a page on Joe Bloggs stating 'his favourite colour is blue' referencing a blog post from Joe Bloggs who writes 'my favourite colour is blue'. Senfre (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third-party sources required for policy points?