Talk:Socialist Studies (1989)

message: IMNSHO woolly terms like generally, that can be neither proven nor disproveen save through general knowledge or highly specialised polling should be avoided when discussing facts - hedging is unnecessary, something either is such and such or some people (identifiable) believe something to be such and such.  It falls under the same stylistic purview as possibly, or maybe which are unencyclopaedic.--Red Deathy 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "generally" is in the same category as "possibly" and "maybe".  The way it is used in the article, "generally" means "in the general case" (i.e., "usually" or "in most cases").  Such a claim is certainly verifiable beyond a reasonable degree of doubt.  If several banks, building societies, the police, the courts, newspapers, other political parties, etc. explicitly claim that Socialist Studies is fraudulently claiming to be the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and if the number of such entities greatly outnumbers the entities who claim otherwise, then it is true that the Socialist Studies's use of the SPGB name is "generally" seen as fraudulent.  I provided several examples to back up this claim, and could provide more on request, but there's not really any point unless you (or someone else) disputes this fact and can provide a greater number of examples of entities claiming that Socialist Studies is not acting fraudulently. —Psychonaut 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, in most cases, and often it's used as a hedge in case tehre are cases where X is sometimes not the case.  It's more encyclopaedic (IMNSHO) to simply state X is the case and cite, rather than hedge.  I think generally extends too far beyond the scope of the limited circumstances involved in this case.   I still think it sounds close to POV, but since you feel stroingly about it, I'll not launch an edit war.--Red Deathy 07:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generally 

message: The section on Cooperation with capitalist law may be incorrect, as according to the Daily Mirror Socialist Studies registered with the Electoral Commission in December 2006.  It's not clear why Socialist Studies would criticise the SPGB for registering with the Electoral Commission when they have done so themselves.  Is this just hypocritical FUD or is the article wrong about Socialist Studies's attitude to capitalist law?  Would appreciate some help here. —Psychonaut 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooperation with capitalist law 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Socialist Studies (1989). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930185501/http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=719&frmType=partydetail to http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=719&frmType=partydetail
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 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified