Talk:Solidarity (British trade union)

message: This article desperately needs information about the popularity and power of the union. Heck, that's the reason I came to this page. :-P
:They are due to send a report to the Certification Officer in the near future and it will contain an indication of numbers. The report (if it is sent) will also be citable as a source. I don't think the leaderships of the normal unions are losing much sleep over Solidarity. 62.7.129.219 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: I deleted the reference to the above category. Solidarity is not a front group. It is an independent group following its own direction. 
doublethink
Never mind 'doublethink' - it's clearly factual to state that. On the BNP's own website, a report on the current position of Solidarity states 'Both the BNP and Third Way leadership agree that the most important step forward for Solidarity organisationally is to expand its Executive from three to seven members, with one of the new members from Third Way and three from the BNP' thus giving the BNP (and its ally) the majority vote at all times. The union always was a front group for the BNP and will be for as long as it last (which won't be that long by the way it's going at the moment). Oh and please sign in or at least put a name so we can see who is making these arbitrary and needless changes.--Ketlan 10:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BNP Front Group Category 

message: It looks to me like they are imploding. The Solidarity website has stated that someone else has Harrington's job and he is the only one in their leadership with real connections. Whatever they say they rely on BNP and Third Way support and both parties have removed references and links from their websites without explanation. A Nationalist Union without their support is going nowhere. Hopefully they are finished.
Cassandra
It might be worth having a look at these three reports before making any further changes (particularly the third one)    --Ketlan 10:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: The article as it stands fails to reflect the fact that the Solidarity union has split into two mutually hostile factions, each claiming to be the 'real' Solidarity. Amusingly, each faction has its own website, the two looking rather similar, using the same logo and each claiming that the other is 'bogus'. A few months ago I ensured that the external links section included both of these websites, but one of them was deleted without explanation by an anonymous surfer a few days later. The impression I have is that this article has been hijacked by editors supporting of the factions (the one headed by Patrick Harrington) who have done everything to exclude any mention of the other faction. This is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, which aims to reflect current reality and not merely facilitate propaganda by this faction or that. If there are two factions (which, judging by the websites, there are) then the article should reflect that. I have therefore restored the second 'official' website to the External Links section. Obviously, the text needs work too to correct the bias towards the Harrington faction, but I don't have the necessary knowledge and can't really be bothered! Twilde (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read our conflict of interest policy if you are the real Patrick Harrington. Secretlondon (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitters! 

message: I've just tidied up the references, so that in the References section they appear as more than just numbers. Also, replaced a dead link with the citation request. However, it seens that most of the references to the Solidarity website do not back up the text as they should - perhaps the website has undergone a major rewrite since the references were made - so they are, in fact, useless. I don't have time to track down accurate refs if they exist - can someone else undertake this or, alternatively, delete any statements that remain unreferenced? Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/citations 

message: I'm useless with Wikipedia and not up-to-date with policy and such, but it seems to me that this needs some kind of tag. One of the sections talks about "our" and "we" which is hardly objective. Illegant (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is necessarily a problem if it is a quotation. Richard Myers (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]]