Talk:Siol nan Gaidheal

message: The term Ultranationalist seems a pretty strange word to use for this group. Ultranationalism usually means Neo-Nazi and other Far-right groups (such as these guys for example), now I don't know much about this organization but from the description in the article they don't sound particularly Ultranationalist to me. Radical Nationalists would perhaps be a better term, I mean these guys seem very similar to Sinn Fein, and nobody has ever called them Ultranationalist.--Hibernian 04:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultranationalists? 

message: A heated, but ultimately constructive, argument concerning this article is preserved below. The version to which you reverted it was biased to the point of being a communication from the organisation itself. Please understand that statements such as:
*"Whenever the kilted S.N.G. columns appeared, a shiver of excitement and expectation spread among friends and foes alike."
*"anyone seeing the drum beating, black banner waving, Colour Party in their Black Shirts and kilts couldn’t fail to be impressed and old and young alike flocked to join the ever-swelling ranks"
and
*"it is remarkable that this particular organisation was not destroyed by the British State"
are simply personal points of view rather than verifiable facts and fly in the face of wikipedia's NPOV principle.
Since you seem to be knowledgeable on this topic I suggest you devote your efforts to increasing the factual accuracy and overall quality of this article, rather than simply reverting it to a previous version and abandoning it.
Thanks.
----
----
Would the Korean (IP address lookup) Users currently defacing this article please desist as the defacements have no basis in fact, evidence or sources cited. 
1. I am co-organiser of the Glencoe Rally where the picture was taken (Copyright issues regarding that photograph are pending) and it is organised by the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement and NOT Siol nan Gaidheal. This picture is misrepresentative and probably breaches copyright. 
2. No relevant evidence has been cited for using this article to bash the Siol with
--Jarvisbaird 12:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Martin Shipway]] et al.

message: I again suggest that instead of leaving "fact" notices everywhere, that one will suffice. 
"the Sun newspaper turned overnight from the Unionist to the Scottish Nationalist cause" - Again, very easy to verify, just cite two different editorials from that newspaper stating the two different opinions.
:Comment - I remember this well, but it was partly a ploy to undermine Labour. 
There has also been a questioning of the Calton Hill vigils for devolution. Again, very well known in Scotland, as were the mass marches organised by Scotland Forward which were supported by three out of four of the major Scottish parties. --MacRusgail 21:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments

message: This page sounds rather more like a 'history' section on an organisation's website than an encyclopaedia entry.--Breadandcheese 03:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True. But there are third party sources which could be used to fix it.  And there are reliable sources which say that SnG "spawned both Scottish Watch and Settler Watch", both of which could be mentioned here.   Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone 

message: Is the lack of gràves in Siol nan Gaidheal (as opposed to Sìol nan Gàidheal) down to typographical probs or is this a deliberate non-use in the name, does anyone know? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo?

message: I'm reverting to socialist for now. I'm NOT saying it's either but at the moment, the only refs I can find say "ultranationalist" and "socialist" except a quote by some SNP guy calling them proto fascists. If they are, of course it's ok to add that but we really need a ref before labelling a party fascitst. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the fascism label. If a SNP guy once calls a group fascists that doesn't qualify to label them in Wikipedia's voice as such. And there seems to be a fair bit of WP:SYNTH involved in using the label. For further discussion see my comments here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, . By the same token I don’t think the “proto-fascist” accusation belongs in the lead; although not in WP’s voice it has undue prominence there. I think that it belongs in the History section, and that it should be accompanied by some statement to provides context—IIRC it was provoked by the schism of SnG from the SNP, whose leader would scarcely be expected to be complimentary under the circumstances. (I haven‘t reviewed all the sources in the article, but I wouldn‘t be surprised if such info is already there.) Further, although the racism claim is cited, ISTM that “anti-English racism“—by fellow ‘white‘ northwestern Europeans–is scarcely the first kind of racism that comes to mind nowadays, so should be qualified as such, as the source does. In fact I think I’ll WP:BOLDly change it to anglophobia, as described by that article, once I‘ve finished this post. Anyway, I would invite the users who have been edit-warring over this content to make their arguments here, rather than in edit summaries, please.—Odysseus1479 01:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

text: That is just a political diatribe that has no place on Wikipedia. Brough87 (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socialist vs Fascist 

message: It is very obvious what you are doing. I am no expert but I am not a fool. The party has oonly recently been described as proto fascists in the infobox, as you well know. 177.72.1.102 (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring by liar 

message: There seems to be some dispute around the content of the article's lead section, namely whether it should contain a description of the group's political character or not. I think it would be absurd if the Wikipedia article for Siol nan Gaidheal, a very political group which is normally described in the mainstream press as ultra-nationalist, crypto-fascist or proto-fascist, does not address this in the opening paragraph. I rewrote the lead to add what I thought was a fairly balanced and well-cited summary of SnG's political views, but it has been moved to the bottom of the article. Can we keep this in the lead too? Zcbeaton (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought your lead was fine and would support its inclusion in the lead. I wouldn't worry about the reversion by ApolloCarmb, he's a long-term sockpuppet user and frequent spammer of this page. Brough87 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I'm picking up on what  said earlier: there is no good reason to use "proto-fascist" as a qualification; it seems that the only person calling them that was Gordon Wilson. And even if that was somehow a properly verified and valid observation, it should be qualified--and it's not. So User:Czello, I'm sorry, but "it's sourced" just doesn't cut it. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very confused as to why a discussion (and therefore a supposed consensus) has been established on the SNP page instead of this one. It's not legitimate to do that in my view. Alssa1 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that this article's descriptor doesn't have to match the SNP's. There didn't seem to be any opposition to both articles sharing the same phrasing, but if you want to re-open the debate I won't oppose you. — Czello 15:17, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proto-fascist", again.