Talk:Solidarity (Scotland)

message: Why have major pieces of content been removed from this article?  
* The whole of the issue around workers rights has been removed - the reason given is I am simply astonished this has been put in the article. Read the source and you will be too. Putting this hear is just a smear.  The section documents an ongoing official dispute between Solidarity MSPs and the NUJ and the IWW.  The sources cited are a letter by the NUJ rep and the IWW website
* The section on similarity to the scottish socialist party has been removed, why?  now checked sources - SSP has now changed their page.
* The section on allegations of fraud has been edited to be more favourable - there is an ongoing police enquiry into the fraud in the solidarity H&I, yet the section now reads as if this is to do with current funding rather than the theft of SSP monies.  
I entirely agree that there is leftie in-fighting going on when the page is radically changed to take out all reference to the ongoing industrial disputes and the investigation into fraud.
Sandydancer - you had previously said that the criticism was "fairly written and sourced" what has changed in the last week?Ms medusa 00:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ms Medusa, I thought about this and I do indeed think a ref should be made to the industrial dispute, but not in the way you have done. And you shouldn't use the expression "theft of SSP monies" in your comment above, as it shows you have come to a point of view which isn't supported by facts. because Solidarity's rival party have accused them of it does not make it true. --SandyDancer 11:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the sections in a neutral manner. All the sources are still there. The wording there previously was extremely biased and gave undue weight to disputes which, objectively speaking, could well be a storm in a teacup. It is understandable that the SSP might well want to throw a lot of mud at Solidarity - who knows, some may stick - but until it does, Wikipedia shouldn't do that work for them. --SandyDancer 12:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dispute over workers rights is over the redundency with no consultation of the workers formerly employed by Sheridan and Byrne.  This is now an official NUJ dispute, which is considerably more than a storm in a teacup.  The fraud issue concerns the SSP funds of the Highlands and Islands region, not the Shetland Isles.Ms medusa 19:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember it is a trade union's job to stick up for its members regardless - action by a trade union does not necessarily mean there has been wrongdoing. It seems to me that its members here may just be victims of circumstances, or maybe they really are victims of wrongdoing by Sheridan & co. We can't say the latter is the case because we have no evidence to do so. These are just allegations. We need to be very careful here - we are dealing with a man with a track record of winning libel actions. --SandyDancer 20:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way it didn't escape my notice that an attempt was made to delete this source, the only one that presents Solidarity's own viewpoint on the whole dispute over funds. I reinserted it. --SandyDancer 20:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major pieces of content removed - why?

message: I would like to explain my removal of the section on polling results. Since WP is an encyclopaedia, we need to bear in mind that we cannot report every single poll that takes place, or even just the major ones. These are utterly insignificant facts. Maybe you could get away with it on Wikinews, but material that may be superseded within weeks really should be avoided. Even to include every piece of political polling in Scotland since the formation of Solidarity (which is what a serious NPOV treatment would require). While I thank the anon user for their reasoning, "Re-inserted section on plolling since highlights level of political support for Solidarity in Scottish society in absence of formal electoral evidence", I question whether WP should be pronouncing judgement on Solidarity's political support at all. It's one thing (and not even necessarily a good thing) to report that, say, the SSP have expressed doubts about viability, while Solidarity assert the opposite; quite another to go around picking up polls and hinting at conclusions. And frankly, there's no way we're going to be able present the evidence in an unbiased way - opinion polling is notoriously subjective, and  it's not worth going to the effort of beating out a well-rounded section from a few bits of data. Therefore, I ask that the section not be reinstated.  --Nema Fakei 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polling results 

message: Since the distinctive Scottish use of this term left me puzzled, I've cobbled together this article. Please help me make it better. --Orange Mike 01:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Platform (Scottish politics)]] 

message: :Image:Solidarity Logo.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Solidarity Logo.jpg

message: # ^  The Herald - Transfer of funds to Sheridan’s party probed
# ^ The Shetland News - Shetland socialists call in cops
# ^ The Herald - Solidarity is cleared over funds ‘smear’
# ^ The Shetland News - Party fraud probe still ongoing
each referencing the same subject, seems a bit odd that all of them ceased working  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.224.133.171 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  links broken 

message: I suggest that the Socialist Party Scotland page is merged into Solidarity. Socialist Party Scotland organises exclusively within Solidarity and is one of its most significant componentsgiven that the Solidarity page is so short, and that the SPS page relies entirely on primary sources, I reckon it would make more sense to merge the page into a "Platforms" section in the Solidarity article. -Zcbeaton (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Given SPS only has 4 citations since 2002 I would question if it simply just needs updating or not. There have been a lot of elections since then. I would research the party before suggesting a merger. ---Drowz0r (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

text: It doesn't seem like they're the same organization though. In fact, this article says that Socialist Party Scotland and Solidarity recently had had a falling-out. Charles Essie (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Given that the SPS have split from Solidarity and operated always as a separate entity it would be wrong to merge these pages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.174 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Solidarity (Scotland). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930234910/http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_2006/shetland_socialists_call_in_cops.htm to http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_2006/shetland_socialists_call_in_cops.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930233354/http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_2006/party_fraud_probe_still_ongoing.htm to http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_2006/party_fraud_probe_still_ongoing.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304133745/http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/061115-solidarity/index.html to http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/061115-solidarity/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024032717/http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/061123-solidarity/index.html to http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/061123-solidarity/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified