This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Ralbegen ( talk · contribs) on 31 December 2019. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Is there any evidence, other than the party's own claims, that Brian Travers was a member? Disintegration1989 ( talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
With George Galloway being a notable politician in the UK and this party's establishment being discussed in several news outlets I argue that this page should not be deleted. Ec1801011 ( talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the people who participated in the Deletion Process actually suggested for keep, regardless of whether they held the "right" opinion, I saw 3 keeps to 1 comment and 1 redirect. Therefore the result to make the page a redirect will gave to be reversed and undo'ed, as there is no reason to not listen to the Consensus just because they disagree with you. Consensus said otherwise and their decision must be respected. -- LinkDirectory5000 ( talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it back to what I had cited, because - and here's a shocker. Maybe a good source for what that party states they stand for is.. that own party's website, cited exactly as it is stated? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a party's position should be reflected through the prism of someone else's opinion or reporting when they have literally stated it on their website. This site is obviously manipulated to neoliberal orthodoxy anyway, but this kind of stuff is just egregious and dumb. WobInDisguise ( talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
it is clearly a left-wing party, members, and the leadership all claim to be socialists Judeobasquelanguage ( talk) 09:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any mention of the "National Socialist Workers Party of Britain" (NSWPB) with regard to George Galloway's party. Its inclusion seems like vandalism. Arky who ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Would people consider the party syncretic + so should this be in the info box? 81.106.115.150 ( talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
id say it is British unionist due to being part of All for Unity HoopaRoopa ( talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This should not be in the ideology section. Opposing wokeness and self-id isn't nearly strong enough to justify the use of this term to describe the party by the source. The source likely doesn't understand the term it uses or is being disingenous. If the bar was this low several other parties would be given this, not even the conservative tories have this on their ideology page, for which I agree because they aren't socially conservative either. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you going to keep repeating the same thing like a bot? I said before that it is based on the definition of the term, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the party at all. You can call the party anything and by your logic it should be taken at face value even if the source uses the term incorrectly. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The labelling the source uses is wrong, I explained that previously. Please explain how the party is socially conservative? You are defending an assetion so you should justify it's inclusion in the article. I was ready to be civil from the start but I don't take passive agression. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The fact you won't answer the question clearly illustrates you are not good faith, you probably haven't even read the source. This website is pathetic. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
So you actually think that justifies using it in the ideology section based on two minor issues? If the party had a sweeping position on a range of social issues like abortion, LGBT rights or capital punishment I'd be fine with it's inclusion, but the examples are nowhere near enough to include this term. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)(UTC)
Using a term from a source for the sake of it even if it's wrong or innacurate is moronic. Nobody on wikipedia can ever adress the use of erroneous infomation from sources. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This party is now part of UK politics, it has been on television news all day. Considering that every major news channel in the country has/is talking about this party I think many more people will take interest and note of this political party. It deserves at least mid-importance. I'm not a wikipedia expert and I'm not quite sure how to go about changing the importance scale, but I thought here is a good place to start the discussion. Friendly Engineer ( talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The contents of Galloway's own letter to selected addresses that states 'unlike other parties, I know what a woman is' and 'God created everything in pairs' including men and women is clear social conservatism. If anything, this leans further right on social policy towards the LGBT community than mainstream Conservatives and Reform. 2A02:C7C:6A66:2100:EC43:E8FC:A261:B41A ( talk) 11:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Reflecktor, adding one line with a citation in the middle of the page is not undue. Helper201 ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
can whoever keeps adding this as an affiliate party please either add a source that actually corroborates it or stop. I'm also sceptical about including A4U as a former affiliate since to me it seems the other way round. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:8561:9915:5E06:8DF6 ( talk) 14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we should use this [1] source for Anti-zionism. HoopaRoopa ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
YouTube is a user generated source and is not generally a reliable source to use for citing sources. The reliability of TLDR is subjective. They have regularly made mistakes in videos, for example in this video they state the wrong communist party when referring to the communist patty that endorsed the WPB. Helper201 ( talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.So the real question isn't about YouTube, it's whether TLDR News themselves are reliable (I say this as someone who is unconvinced that they are). — Czello ( music) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I was curious about the history behind the unreferenced quote defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain
removed by
Cortador in
this edit. Here is what I found:
defend the achievements of the USSR, China, Cuba etcand supported by this article in The Times.
defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain.- leaving the original source in place.
So I suppose we should restore the original quote, supported by the original source. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
How can this page claim that they are solely left-wing or far-left if they have social tradionalist views? Surely syncretic is a better term here. Left wing by it's definition contradits the social traditionalism that they promote. I wouldn't put them down as such. They promote socialism (economics) and (social) traditionalism. I wouldn't label them solely as 'left wing' 90.195.179.57 ( talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2020. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
This page was proposed for deletion by Ralbegen ( talk · contribs) on 31 December 2019. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
Is there any evidence, other than the party's own claims, that Brian Travers was a member? Disintegration1989 ( talk) 14:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
With George Galloway being a notable politician in the UK and this party's establishment being discussed in several news outlets I argue that this page should not be deleted. Ec1801011 ( talk) 19:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the people who participated in the Deletion Process actually suggested for keep, regardless of whether they held the "right" opinion, I saw 3 keeps to 1 comment and 1 redirect. Therefore the result to make the page a redirect will gave to be reversed and undo'ed, as there is no reason to not listen to the Consensus just because they disagree with you. Consensus said otherwise and their decision must be respected. -- LinkDirectory5000 ( talk) 02:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I reverted it back to what I had cited, because - and here's a shocker. Maybe a good source for what that party states they stand for is.. that own party's website, cited exactly as it is stated? I mean, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever that a party's position should be reflected through the prism of someone else's opinion or reporting when they have literally stated it on their website. This site is obviously manipulated to neoliberal orthodoxy anyway, but this kind of stuff is just egregious and dumb. WobInDisguise ( talk) 20:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
it is clearly a left-wing party, members, and the leadership all claim to be socialists Judeobasquelanguage ( talk) 09:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I cannot find any mention of the "National Socialist Workers Party of Britain" (NSWPB) with regard to George Galloway's party. Its inclusion seems like vandalism. Arky who ( talk) 14:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Would people consider the party syncretic + so should this be in the info box? 81.106.115.150 ( talk) 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
id say it is British unionist due to being part of All for Unity HoopaRoopa ( talk) 13:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This should not be in the ideology section. Opposing wokeness and self-id isn't nearly strong enough to justify the use of this term to describe the party by the source. The source likely doesn't understand the term it uses or is being disingenous. If the bar was this low several other parties would be given this, not even the conservative tories have this on their ideology page, for which I agree because they aren't socially conservative either. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 13:51, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you going to keep repeating the same thing like a bot? I said before that it is based on the definition of the term, it has nothing to do with my opinion on the party at all. You can call the party anything and by your logic it should be taken at face value even if the source uses the term incorrectly. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 14:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The labelling the source uses is wrong, I explained that previously. Please explain how the party is socially conservative? You are defending an assetion so you should justify it's inclusion in the article. I was ready to be civil from the start but I don't take passive agression. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 14:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The fact you won't answer the question clearly illustrates you are not good faith, you probably haven't even read the source. This website is pathetic. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
So you actually think that justifies using it in the ideology section based on two minor issues? If the party had a sweeping position on a range of social issues like abortion, LGBT rights or capital punishment I'd be fine with it's inclusion, but the examples are nowhere near enough to include this term. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)(UTC)
Using a term from a source for the sake of it even if it's wrong or innacurate is moronic. Nobody on wikipedia can ever adress the use of erroneous infomation from sources. 2A00:23C6:229D:D301:AC8D:56AD:44DE:49A6 ( talk) 15:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
This party is now part of UK politics, it has been on television news all day. Considering that every major news channel in the country has/is talking about this party I think many more people will take interest and note of this political party. It deserves at least mid-importance. I'm not a wikipedia expert and I'm not quite sure how to go about changing the importance scale, but I thought here is a good place to start the discussion. Friendly Engineer ( talk) 20:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The contents of Galloway's own letter to selected addresses that states 'unlike other parties, I know what a woman is' and 'God created everything in pairs' including men and women is clear social conservatism. If anything, this leans further right on social policy towards the LGBT community than mainstream Conservatives and Reform. 2A02:C7C:6A66:2100:EC43:E8FC:A261:B41A ( talk) 11:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Reflecktor, adding one line with a citation in the middle of the page is not undue. Helper201 ( talk) 11:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
can whoever keeps adding this as an affiliate party please either add a source that actually corroborates it or stop. I'm also sceptical about including A4U as a former affiliate since to me it seems the other way round. 2A02:C7C:9B36:7D00:8561:9915:5E06:8DF6 ( talk) 14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we should use this [1] source for Anti-zionism. HoopaRoopa ( talk) 14:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
YouTube is a user generated source and is not generally a reliable source to use for citing sources. The reliability of TLDR is subjective. They have regularly made mistakes in videos, for example in this video they state the wrong communist party when referring to the communist patty that endorsed the WPB. Helper201 ( talk) 19:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.So the real question isn't about YouTube, it's whether TLDR News themselves are reliable (I say this as someone who is unconvinced that they are). — Czello ( music) 13:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
References
I was curious about the history behind the unreferenced quote defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain
removed by
Cortador in
this edit. Here is what I found:
defend the achievements of the USSR, China, Cuba etcand supported by this article in The Times.
defend the achievements of the people of Great Britain.- leaving the original source in place.
So I suppose we should restore the original quote, supported by the original source. -- DeFacto ( talk). 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
How can this page claim that they are solely left-wing or far-left if they have social tradionalist views? Surely syncretic is a better term here. Left wing by it's definition contradits the social traditionalism that they promote. I wouldn't put them down as such. They promote socialism (economics) and (social) traditionalism. I wouldn't label them solely as 'left wing' 90.195.179.57 ( talk) 15:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)