Talk:Alba Party

Criticism Addition & Statements Not Within Source (public news publishers).

I am travelling & unable to log-in, I had edited section "2021 Scottish Parliament election", with the creation of a criticism section.

Quite allot of editorial errors within the original, we have to be careful when making edits that outright state individuals said words, (defamation) statements made were not within the cite courses or from the cited persons directly. There was allot of copy & paste from public news writers opinions in regards to what people said. Allot of this section was copied of The National Newspaper, The Independent & the Guardian.

My opinion is that the editing person was on a rant of sorts based on the content, similar topics split apart & repeated i.e rushed layout, I have reorganised into a criticism section to allow editors to put in cited sourced against Alba during the stated 2021 Elections.

Point to note, whatever public papers, writer or sources say individuals had indeed said is generally hearsay until you can source the actual link to the individual making such statements.

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, not a public forum for public news article copy & paste, lets try retain its integrity. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:191F:FD1E:B389:B6D1 (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Left, Far Left Vandal - Semi-Controlled Page

After reading some of the contact, reasons for changes and false statements not appearing on attached sourced information tag(s), it is evident this page is being used/edited by individuals who have bias towards alba and its existence.

There is quite militant attempts to delegitimise the party, what the party stands for which is not made up from a few individuals cited, the party is made up from many politicians with different views and 700 Scots voters.

I would assume many vandals are current SNP supporters, and/or what they call unionists.

Facts are built on absolutes, if a source does not outright prove its an official statement, its not a source, also the opinions of news writers are not factual, nor is what they write on their articles, they are the opinions held by the viewer & writer.

The wiki page "Alba Party" should be a brief encyclopaedia of who the party are in general, what work they do and who runs the party, it no place for the snarling rants of public, or opposition.

I advise this page be semi-protected to avoid grooming hate, dislike or bigotry of any kind. Online a.d edit. 194.73.217.219 (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples of content you think is problematic?

To address some of your comments:

if a source does not outright prove its an official statement, its not a source, Unless I've misinterpreted, it sounds like you're saying only official content from Alba (or supported by them) should be used as a source. That is absolutely not what we do. We prioritise indepdendent sources over Alba's official word.

also the opinions of news writers are not factual, nor is what they write on their articles, they are the opinions held by the viewer & writer. While opinion pieces are treated with more scepticism, if a news source is considered reliable then we include its interpretation.

it no place for the snarling rants of public, or opposition. If there are views toward the party that are notable, then we include them. We don't just include the basics. — Czello ^(music) 12:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I may be one of the so-called “vandals” that you are talking about. I edited the page to “centre-right” as it is a known fact that Alba is a conservative leaning counterpart to the left-leaning SNP, although having read up on the party a bit more, i discovered a few members came from the left of the SNP. So i believe that listing as “Centre to Centre Right” would be the most fitting & maybe including “Left Wing” in the factions section.

Alba is most certainly a “Big Tent” party, but it certainly leans more to the right, as is evident from their keen interest on preserving tradition & opposition to the gender reform bill. Jaybainshetland (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The SNP and Labour support preserving tradition, and the SNP, have people who oppose the gender reform bill, their deputy is Katie Forbes, John Swinney said there are only 2 genders, they used to be led by Alex Salmond, the whole reason the Alba Party exist. Nobody would describe the SNP as socially conservative, they are clearly not a conservative party, the Alba Party other than them being a Gender Critical party on the Gender Reform bill, have it seems no conservative views whatsoever, so can at worst be called a Gender Critical liberal party, what on earth makes them right wing, or socially conservative, I cant see a thing that does. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:557F:7662:3A4A:8E46 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Alba are Socially liberal, not Socially conservative

They are not that socially conservative, they are pro choice on abortion, support the Human Rights act, support same sex-marriage, they support penalties against hate speech, support refugees, support a allowance of Women to serve in combat roles, oppose Capital punishment, oppose national service, support limiting misinformation, oppose the House of Lords, encourage diversity training, oppose flag burning laws, the only thing they dont support is parts of the Gender reform acts, so they are really a Gender Critical Socialy Liberal Party, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:b3ae:1201:3cab:87b9:ac1a:eda1 (talk • contribs)

This is ultimately WP:OR. We say what the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 23:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

But you choose the sources and surely a objective look, would say they are very much the same as the SNP on most things, and really they are just a party of people out of favour with the SNP leadership, they are not conservative on anything, Salmond was thrown out of the SNP in the 80s for being too left wing, and Tommy Sheridan, a Militant anti poll tax socialist, is in it, and the Proclaimers, supported them. They have ex-SNP MPs like Ash Regan, surely its a Socially Liberal Gender Critical Party, of mainstream Centre Left economics, led by people who fell out of favour with the then SNP leadership. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:3CAB:87B9:AC1A:EDA1 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support your point of view? AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Alba are a Gender Critical Socially Liberal Party, of the Centre Left, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:3CAB:87B9:AC1A:EDA1 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

A basic look at what they believe in, and understanding of what constitutes centre left and socially liberal, can you give me a list of socially conservative things they believe in, not to do with Gender Critical policies. Can you give a few examples of socially conservative policies they have, outside of GC views. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:3CAB:87B9:AC1A:EDA1 (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on the basis of what you believe or what I believe. It works on the basis of what reliable sources say. There is no point you restating your analysis of why you think they're socially liberal, or demanding that I or anyone else provide counterarguments, because that's not how it works.

There are reliable sources calling them socially conservative. If you can find some supporting the idea that they're socially liberal, then we can have a conversation about how to integrate that viewpoint too. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Its not a matter of what i believe in, or what I demand, its a matter of what we all know, you cat list anything where they are socially conservative, as they are not socially conservative, the only thing they are socially conservative on, is the Gender reform act, and even on that, they are not Widdecombe, or MTG, or Hungary conservatives, well I cant discuss this anymore, its so incoherant, sorry, but sorry its poor. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:3CAB:87B9:AC1A:EDA1 (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay but again, we say what the sources say. We don't make our own interpretations. — Czello ^(music) 23:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s like asking someone to cite how a party is Fiscally Conservative, without mentioning the economy. Pretty weak argument if you have to ask that something be excluded from judgement. Jaybainshetland (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way are the Alba Party socially conservative, they are clearly liberal on just about everything. And even on the gender reform bill, they criticise it from a liberal point of view, they dont hate Trans people, they are not some conservative party that fires abuse at all trans people, they are tolerant of trans people, they just believe biological women and biological men exist and believe that this must be factored into nuanced laws. Indeed the SNP leader John Swinney said there are only 2 genders, and the Labour Leader in Scotland and the UK as a whole, in 2024, said they dont support biological males in at least most womens sports. The Alba Party are a nuanced gender critical party with liberal view on everything. They are a clearly not remotely social conservative, and nobody can really supply any evidence to refute that, except they have some very political polemicist columnists, and rival politicians who are likely using the term either to attack the party, or to claim positions held by Alba are socially conservative, so they can use that to condemn those views, by nature of association. Clerly Alba are a mildy gender critical, Liberal party, and not remotely social conservative. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The people calling the Alba party socially conservative, are just like the Monty Python Peoples front of Judea, hating rival Peoples front of Judea more than they hate the Romans, or like when Stalinist and Trotskyists called eachother the F word, in the 1930s, as in Fascists, its just meant as a insult, no sensible person would regard Stalinists or Trostskyists as far right just as their rival said they are, and so sensible person should regard rival left wingers calling the centre left liberal Alba Party, socially conservative, as anything other than mean spirited insults against splitters from their movement. Anybody who regards the more republican, more left wing on many issues, Alba party as anything other than a modern liberal party is having you on. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Get a course on understanding political bias before writing any articles on Wikipedia. A good book to read would be The Nature of History Paperback – 1 Sept. 1989. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is by Arthur Marwick, and lets you understand bias., 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but we go by what the sources say, not by what you think. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Here is some advice, dont believe a source just as it says something is the case, just as you would not buy the Brooklyn bridge off a con artist I hope, who claims he owns it, dont just fall for what random people say about people, without substantiating their claims. The Alba Party are clearly a socially liberal party as they dont have any conservative views on anything, even their views on Gender reform are liberal critiques. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the Alba Party are socially conservative because some sources say it. I believe the Alba Party must be described as socially conservative on Wikipedia because some sources say it, because that's how Wikipedia works. What I believe about them personally is irrelevant. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources that describe them as socially conservative are clearly people with a axe to grind, or throw away remarks, in articles that treat Scottish politics as a after thought, from people who have clearly not researched the subject. The Alba Party are clearly a party of left wing liberals, with no conservative views at all. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Political position?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Due to the nature of this party, i believe that it’d be beneficial to split the party’s position into Fiscal & Social, as the party is Fiscally left leaning, but socially slightly right leaning. Jaybainshetland (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that we need to avoid WP:OR. To do this we would need sources that explicitly call the party economically/fiscally centre-left/left-leaning and socially right-leaning. Aontú for example does have sources that explicitly identify the party as that. But we only have sources that either call the party just centre-left or just centre-right without mentioning the economic & fiscal divide, then we end up with something we cannot substantiate. Brat Forelli🦊 19:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I found an article from The National that states this:

The Alba Party does not have any policies or a manifesto, but it is clear to see where they have positioned themselves already.
The presence of ex-79 Group members like MacAskill and Salmond shows that they want to present themselves as an old-fashioned socialist party on economic matters, class reductionist and radical.
Their stance on social issues is transparent too. Alba rapidly defined itself as socially conservative.

But this unfortunately does not take us any further because "socialist party on economic matters" is not synonymous with "fiscally left-wing", and "socially conservative" likewise does not mean "socially right-wing". That would be drawing our interpretations, which as @Czello would certainly remind us, is the definition of WP:OR and thus against Wikipedia's guidelines. Brat Forelli🦊 19:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Do we take what the National says, as a source of record, if you read the National, it has some pretty interesting things to say about conservatives, and Labour, would we regard those statements and labels it attaches to those parties, as perfectly OK to put in the headings of Wikipedia articles, many of which no serious encylopedia would put in their articles for them. I am not condemning the paper, it is perfectly OK to express its views, but are you picking in choosing to suit a agenda, surely the people who label Alba, Socially Conservative are in the main just people who are calling it that, as it is easier to dismiss the party with that term as a insult, when in reality claims it is socially conservative, dont stack up to indepdent scrutiny. If anything Labour, and the SNP probably have some social conservatives in their ranks, but we would not label them as such a party. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you give examples of where the party is socially slightly right wing, give 5 examples. I say it is a Gender critical socially liberal party, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 10:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Alba is a tiny party, of not a huge standing, but is it fair to call it socially conservative, when really that label is likely just being used as a label to diSmiss them, and there is very little in what they believe that is anywhere near to socially conservative on 90 percent of their policies, probably close to 100 percent. They would not even be seen as Rinos in the US GOP, they would be seen as very left wing even for a Rino. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the political labels that we use tend to be relative to the country in which they're based; for example, the GOP article lists them as centre-right to right-wing, which is the same as how we label the Tories – in both countries that labelling is probably accurate, even though we typically consider the GOP to be much further to the right than the Tories. Similarly, Alba would be considered socially conservative by UK standards

Nevertheless, we say what the sources say – which in this case is socially conservative. — Czello ^(music) 11:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you give some examples where Alba are considered social conservative, give 5 examples, not including Gender critical issues, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, we describe them how sources describe them. It's not on us to give examples and make an interpretation – that's WP:OR. (I'm also unsure why you'd include gender critical issues.) — Czello ^(music) 13:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Because clearly they are only being classed as socially conservative as some people can use it as a term of dismissing them, when on just about everything they are very much the same as SNP and Labour, except they are more gender critical. You cant give may examples where they are socially conservative, you can only give examples, of people who have reasons to be dismissive of them, have given them this label, and its a term that they themselves would not want put on themselves even though their beliefs are very similar to Alba, on most social issues. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that "social conservative" is a term that would be used to dismiss them. It's ultimately a legitimate political position, and not an uncommon one. As we are beholden to what the sources say you're going to have to make a case that the source in this instance shouldn't be used as an WP:RS. — Czello ^(music) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are a social conservative, it is totally fair to call you a social conservative, if you are not, it seems quite unfair. Your wikipedia article states this,

In 2017 the pro-independence Green MSP Ross Greer criticised the National newspaper after it labelled a number of Conservative politicians as "Enemies of the Scottish People".

Now would you think it fair if the Wikipedia article, labelled in their description box, that for the Scottish conservatives, of course not, it would be very biased, yes people can say that if they like, but as a claim it is not neutral at all. So why are you thinking it OK, to just accept a source without any effort to substantiate the claim, there is no real reason to call the current Alba party, which is really just a party of SNP type people who fell out with the leadership of the party, a Social conservative party. When most of what they believe is very similar to the SNP and Labour. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:1201:4D58:2216:B3B7:4CDD (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

And being mildly gender critical is not social conservative, the term of offence versus it is TERF, any more than being opposed to GC ideas makes you a radical left winger. I mean many great important conservative figures were interested in this issue, there were supposedly at least 3 all powerful Roman emperors interested in very much ways of living that agreed with the new gender recognition act, plus there were Tory MPS, and people of all sorts of conservatives that lived lifestyles similar to those agreed with by the new changes in the laws. And the Roman emperors were all powerful leaders treated as Gods, which is a extremely conservative way. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

PS Alba rightly believe we should be nice to all people, whether trans or not, but its not socially conservative to be mildly GC. And they dont hate trans people, they accept them as much as they do the rest of society, feeling they deserve rights, and opposing bullying or hate v them, but they just have some mild disagreements on policy, they are not some hateful social conservative movement that fires insults at minority groups, and says horrible things about them, they respect Trans people as human beings who should be respected and protected in many ways, but just believe in some nuanced differences in believing biological sex has some importance in some situations, which is not a social conservative view, as many left wingers like Stamer or Streeting also believe that. We should be nice to trans people, and accepting, and it is not socially conservative to be nuanced. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 09:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

None of this addresses the fact that they're described as socially conservative in sources. — Czello ^(music) 09:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Name the sources, and have you made any attempt to substantiate the claims of the sources, and do you regard those sources as so "paper of record" that you use regard anything those sources say as neutral sources. Name those sources. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You can find the sources in the article. — Czello ^(music) 14:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If they were of note you would have listed them surely, tell me the examples, a non answer, or a request for me to find them for you, could be seen as evidence that the sources are very weak, and not proof of the very serious and misguided claim that the Alba Party are social conversative, when they are clearly are clearly just SNP milk toast liberals who split off the party as of leadership disputes, and the Salmond Sturgeon personality driven factional divide. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not my job to do your work for you. The claim is sourced but the fact that you're asking for them makes me believe you haven't actually read the article properly. If you want to dispute the sources you need to go to the effort of saying why each one – individually – is not reliable. — Czello ^(music) 14:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The claims they are socially conservative is built on a source or sources that are so weak , that anybody who supports the claim they are socially conservative, is unwilling to state the sources, as the source would be knocked down like a bag of sticks. They are clearly not a socially conservative party, in any sense, nothing they believe is socially conservative, every thing they believe is believed by many many people in the Labour Party, and many liberal centre left parties, there is very little divergence from the ALba Party with modern left wing and liberal thinking, and massive variance between Alba Party and any social conservative party anywhere in the world. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, you will have to make a case why each individual source is too weak to be used. So far you haven't done so. — Czello ^(music) 14:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I could list millions of sources which also dont substantiate the derogatory claim that the SNP are Socially Conservative. Episode 4 of series one of Postman Pat, Star Trek the Original series 1, episode 2, Star Trek the Movie, and the complete works of William Shakespeare, do not substantiate the claim that Alba are socially conservative. Give me examples that claim the insulting and dishonest moniker, that Alba are socially conservative, and lets see how strong they are. You cat give examples, as they are so weak, they are powder puff. The only people who claim Alba are socially conservative, are SNP people who are fighting a petty civil war with Alba, as of a uninteresting personal feud between Salmond and Sturgeon and their backers, and some people opposed to gender critical ideas, who want to claim anybody who believes biological sex exists, is some kind of social conservative, even though when pressed, almost nobody in politics left or right, or in the general media would ever claim biological sex does not exist. Alba are a moderate centre left party, of people, who in most cases would be regarded to the left on every issue of much of the SNP, such as Ewing and Forbes, and even then Forbes and Ewing, are moderate centrists on most issues anyway. The Alba party is just a spilt off the SNP as of personal feuds, not a ideaological socially conservative movement. Alba is not like the Tory Party or Orban or National Rally, Alba is a moderate centrist and centre left party. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia operates based on your first two sentences. Ultimately you can easily find the sources in the article, if you want to make a case against them you'll have go through them individually to say why they're not WP:RS. Until then it sounds like you're just making an I don't like it argument. — Czello ^(music) 15:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What a condescening arrogant remark, I have asked you to supply the sources, because clearly there is not a reputable neutral source making the claim you make. All you have is a columnist called Neil, I have no criticism to make of this gentleman, he is entitled to his views, and I am sure they are clever views, but he is a columnist, and rival politicians, like Dugdale, and the Green party, making claims of that nature. Nobody would see the view of Ann Leslie, or some Daily Telegraph colmunist, or maybe a politician like Nigel Farage, or Donald TRump, as some neutral arbiter of what is what in the political jungle, so it is misguided and wrong of you, to have these columnists and politicians as sources of what you categorically describe the ALba Party as, it is quite shameful, and surely most people who have been to any university in Britain have in any liberal art, seen that they should look at the sources for political bias, why have you failed to do this, even a 1sst year undergrad, who has done 3 months of classes would have been capable of doing this, it is quite shameful that you are using sources that are self evidently political and not even trying to be neutral. To take a politician's statement about a rival party, as a source for categorising that party is so poor, a form of writing a article, it is shocking, no reputable geninly neutral sources could really claim that the alba party is socially conservative. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're going to need to detail why Neil Mackay shouldn't be used as a source in this context; so far all you've said is that he's "a columnist", which isn't a valid reason. Also sources themselves aren't obligated to be neutral.

Secondly you've also missed another source in the infobox. — Czello ^(music) 15:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Clearly being a columnist is not something anyone can class as a neutral source. The columnists are obviosly political, this article has failed to realise that, indeed when writing a neutral article you must look at what the beliefs and agendas are of those writing the sources you take have. Instead the people who wrote this article on Alba, have just read what somebody says, and taken as gospel. That is not good writing, and it would likely be classed as a fail even in a school GCSE paper, to just take a source and take what that source says as gospel, without any thought about their bias, or why they would have said it, would result in a fail for most even GCSE papers. And with good reason. Would you employ anybody who just accepted whatever anybody says without question, of course not, and no good employer would, you must analyse the reason and thinking behind statements, and not just accept what is said as gospel. Anybody who does not look at the bias, and reasons why somebody says things, is them being like a comedy character, from a sitcom, who when working in Fort Knox just gives a shady customer, all the treasure, as he just said, that the owner was speaking to him yesterday and said he could take all the gold bars, this article on Alba, is poorly written and fails even the lowest standards of jouranistic enquiry. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And one of Alba's only ever MPs, in Westminster Neil Hanvey is a homosexual, and proudly out, and welcomed and accepted in the party, so he is of the LGBT community, they are not some homophobic party, they are against bigotries, the only thing they are condemned for is having mildly gender critical views on the gender reform bill, on which even that they critiique from a Dawkins like position of saying biological women exist, but trans people must be treated with respect, and we must condemn hate and bullying of trans people. They are absolutely not a social conservative party, no reputable neutral apolitical source would categorise them as that, only rival politicians, usually of the left would as a means of attacking them, in a typical left wingers condemn left wingers, Monty Python and the Peoples front of Judea, style attack on fellow left wingers, for not agreeing with all their beliefs in every way style way. Shame on anybody who calls a liberal, centre left party like the Alba Party socially conservative, just as they dont agree with their own mantras. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments boil down to wanting to engage in WP:OR. Again, this is not how Wikipedia works. — Czello ^(music) 20:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well why dont you just listen to what the Alba party says they are, they dont claim to be a socially conservative party, and nothing they believe in socially conservative, even their view on the Gender reform bill, is from a radical left wing position, supported by left wingers like Richard Dawkins, JK Rowling and Elaine Miller, it is not some conservative view, filled with hatred towards gays, as many of their Gender Critical position views are supported by LGBT individuals, of the left like Elaine Miller, and Kathleen Stock. And Kate Forbes of the SNP opposed it on more religious conservative grounds, and is deputy leader of the SNP, but nobody would ever class it as social conservative as it is clearly liberal. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

What they claim themselves doesn't matter, that's a WP:PRIMARY source. — Czello ^(music) 07:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Repeating what sources say is exactly what we do here. Wikipedia is designed to be a summary of what sources say on a topic; it's literally the point of this website.

Not only is it not problematic, to do otherwise (filter the contents of sources through our own analysis) would be a violation of the most basic Wikipedia policy.

You are welcome to think that this article "fails even the lowest standards of journalistic enquiry" if you want, but given that we're not doing journalism here, that's pretty irrelevant one way or the other. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Anybody who just parrots random sources without substantiating them, is of no standing, and should be ashamed, this is like something from a sketch from a comedy show, where somebody reads a David Icke book, or a twitter post and does not have any critical thinking over the matter, over whether to disagree with what they say. Nobody with that lack of critical thinking should be editing anything, what an embaressing thing to admit, this proves that the idea Alba is a social conservative party, is nothing but a embaressing mistake to claim. Alba is clearly a modern socially liberal split off the SNP, which likely will be reintegrated into it, or other parties, in due course. I feel sorry for anyboidy with such a lack of critical thought processes that they just parrot what others say with no substantiation of the claims. Its just sad really. Well it just proves, THE ALBA PARTY ARE A SOCIALLY LIBERAL PARTY, who also believe in the liberal left wing idea of gender critical feminism. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

OK AntiDionysius (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Kate Forbes the deputy leader of the SNP opposed the gender reform bill, but nobody classes the SNP as socially conservative as they have virtually the same view on everything as the Alba Party on social matters. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Well no more comments from me, but I think that argument is done, clearly the Alba Party are a socially liberal party. Thats all I need to say. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't really an "argument", but sure. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, nobody classes the SNP as socially conservative. So we don't either. But people do class the Alba Party as socially conservative, so we do. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The source you give as classing the Alba Party as socially conservative is "socially conservative". Is a scatter paragraphed article, by journalist Emilio Casalicchio. Who gives no explanation as to why he is labelling it as socially conservative, and then proceeds to have less than a paragraph on the subjevt of Scottish politics, and then proceeds to have mini paragaphs on the whole of world politics, summing up Urkaine to USA politics in 2 or 3 sentances on each subject. This is the very epitomy of a type of article that should not be classed as the gospel defintion of Scottish politics. Its like if you like Scottish football, would you buy the Sunday Mail, which has a whole section on Scottish football, or a English newspaper, which may just have 2 paragraphs and a league table, This article is not written by a professor of some Scottish university obssessed with Scottish politics this is written by somebody who had a newsletter to write, and was told to summarise 20 world politics stories in less than a few sentances for each if that. He did a marvellous job, but no way should anything he said in this article be taken as gospel defintions, it is a light skim through of the subject and is no more a source for a dictionary than the facts on the back of a beer mat you saw in the pub. As someone who has written this many few paragraphs can not possibly be a expert on the subject, and is clearly making no claims to be, so delete that if you want any credibility. I am not criticising Emilio Casalicchio, but no way should such throwaway, off hand, after thought remarks, (as you would expect a non Scottish newspaper to feel about what could be the 10th largest party of Scotland) be seen as something you can define a party by, especially when the facts prove clearly the Alba Party are a socially liberal party, very similar to the SNP on everything. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The Alba Party are a very small Socially liberal Party, full of left wing and liberal politicians who left the SNP as of personality splits. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source for them being "socially liberal"? AntiDionysius (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

especially when the facts prove clearly the Alba Party are a socially liberal party I still feel like you're not understanding the WP:OR policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Condescending arrogance is not a good response from somebody who thinks throw away remarks from a non Scottish online paper, can define a political party they know little about. It would be like a small online US chat mag, being used as the paper of record for India's political parties. It is a absolute disgrace that you are letting a non Scottish newspaper, and some columnists, and rival politicians, define a political party, when these definitions are likely based on factional slurs when they are rival Scottish politicians, and politicos, and when a foreign newspaper likely based on throw away lack of understanding, its like thinking a non Scottish person who does not care about Scottish football, and thinks of it as a after thought should be the advisor on Scottish football for a newspaper, its just very weak, and not good. You clearly can nit defend the position of claiming the Alba Party is socially conservative, as it does not hold any social conservative views on anything, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:7DC2:CF0E:F22A:78C7 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't being condescending or arrogant, I was just observing, correctly, that you are either unwilling or unable to understand basic Wikipedia policy despite having it cited to you north of ten times now.

You, on the other hand, have variously said of other people in this thread:

* possess a lack of critical thinking

* are of no standing, and should be ashamed, this is like something from a sketch from a comedy show, where somebody reads a David Icke book, or a twitter post and does not have any critical thinking over the matter

* would likely be classed as a fail even in a school GCSE paper...is them being like a comedy character, from a sitcom

* even a 1sst year undergrad, who has done 3 months of classes would have been capable of doing this

* have clearly not researched the subject

* so incoherant

We have been incredibly civil and patient with you, through these personal attacks, through you comparing us to a Holocaust denier, and through your own condescending demand that I, a former journalist and current doctoral candidate in political science, Get a course on understanding political bias. We have explained the relevant policies to you repeatedly, and you have flat out ignored them, and tried to change the article unilaterally despite the aforementioned policy issues and the evident lack of consensus in your favour. There is nothing more I can do for you here. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have never compared you to a Holocauast denier, that is out right libel, wen did I do that. I never ever ever compared you to a Holocaust denier. I have never ever ever ever compared you to a Holocaust denier, that is a outright lie. I said you dont just pick random sources and put them in articles, I said you must substantiate them, and chose examples of people, to prove that you must always substantiate claims you cant just pick a random example and not substantiate it,. You are being very rude there, and that is a outright lie, I never said a horrible thing like that about you or anybody else. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have not compared anybody to a Holocaust denier, I have said that just picking random sources and not substantiating them is nit something that would be regarded as good journalistic integrity. Nowhere did I say anybody was a Holocaust denier, or like a holocaust denier, I said that just picking random sources and not substantiating them is clearly wrong, and lacks integrity, I did not says anybody was like a Holocaust denier, I said picking random sources and not substantiating them, is something lack lacks integrity. There has clearly been no effort tio substantiate the sources claiming Alba are socially conservative, it has been just taken as read, and put in articles as if it is a fact, with no real justification or substantiation, I never compared any editor to a Holocaust denier, and that is a appalling and unjustifiable claim to make, you must apologise for. I never called anybody a Holocaust denier, and the only insult I made , was that this article is poor, as it lacks substantiation for the claims made, which is clearly the case. I never compared any editor to a Holocaust denier, that is a very rude thing to claim, and you must apologise for this claim, as the claim is unsubtantiated. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have nit made any personal attacks on anybody, but you are now claiming I made a horrible claim, comparing a editor a to a holocaust denier, which is actually a repulsive personal attack on me, you are the one making a personal attack. Just as I dont fall in line with a unjustifiable claim that the socially liberal alba Party are socially conservative. I made no personal attack, I stated that the article is poorly written and does nit substantiate its claims which is true, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I never compared or called any Wikipedia editor a holocaust denier, that is a outrageous interpretation, and a scandalous political attack on me, how dare you claim I made such a unjustifiable claim, apologise to me, I never said anything of the sort apologise if you have any integrity or explain why are you making such a monstrous misinterpretation, I never said any editor was like or comparable to a Holocaust denier, what a horrible thing to say, apologise to me now, please, I never said anything of the sort. Dont be so rude, 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologise to me, for the claim I compared any editor to a Holocaust denier, I never did anything of the sort, that is a slander apologise to me now. And take that comment back, so such allegation was made by me, apologise to me immediately. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't keep going round in circles with you about this. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand Wikipedia policies. To summarise:

• You're making a lot of personal interpretations of what social conservatism is or what Alba's positioning is. We do not do that; please read WP:OR.
• We say what sources say. We do not debate their opinions.
• If you think the sources are not reliable you need to make a coherent argument as to why. So far you haven't other than vague and unsubstantiated comments. In fact one of the sources is even listed as reliable on WP:RSP, so the arguments hold even less weight. Also remember that sources are not obligated to be unbiased.
• It is also worth you reading WP:TRUTH.

Until these points are addressed we can't really continue this conversation; as I say, it's going round in circles. — Czello ^(music) 08:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources claiming that Alba are socially conservative are clearly of the Monty Python Judean Peoples front style way, of insulting people who agree with them on everything, as worse than the Romans, as they do not agree with every single thing they believe on. The Alba party have virtually the same beliefs as the SNP on everything, and if anything the SNP with Kate Forbes, AND jOHN sWINNEY WHO SAYS THERE ARE ONLY 2 GENDERS, are if anything slightly to the right even socially of the Tommy Sheridan, Alex Samlond, Ash Regan, Neil Hanvey, Alba Party. Virtually every member of Alba was previously a member of the SNP, and most are socially liberal on any reasnoble interpretation of the term. The snp HAVE THAT mp WHO SUPPORTS cLYDE WHO WAS MUCH MORE soically conservtive, than any Alba representative. The SNP and Alba are both left with centrist parties, the only reason Alba exist is personal feuds between the leadership. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources that claim Alba are Socially conservative, would be taken by a meticulous investiogator as evidence. They are by politically biased commentators who clearly let their personal disagreements with the party cloud their labels for their party, and a uninterested throw away remark from a non Scottish publisher that is writing a scattering of different 1 paragaph stories from around the world, that nobody should take as anything other than a uninformed after thought comment on a very minor element of Scottish politics.

People interested in writing good articles that are trustworthy look at, and substantiate claims, it saddens me, that there are people writing wikipedia articles without feeling they need to substantiate claims. In the USA they used to have civic classes and in the UK, that taught this kind of perfectly normal behaviour, and in British universities, there used to be classes that taught people to analyse bias in sources, I am proud that is what we used to have. I am sorry that is not felt to be the way to do it anymore. To be honest that kind of thing, is actually a good thing for life as well. In your own life, you are perfectly entitled to analyse if a good review for a plumber or garage is from a reasonable unbiased source, in the professional field, good police officers, lawyers, and to be honest the best journalists research the sources and such for bias. I know in the field of archaeology and of course history the best leccturers, and historians, would research if a source is reliable, in my day we were told this is normal behaviour, I know it is too late for this article, snd to be quite honest it is a very insignificant party, that likely will be regobbled up by the SNP, Labour and the Tories, in due course, and maybe even a breakway genunly right wing minority party, but its a sad day for society if analysing sources for potential bias and just taking what ever anybody says, whoever they are, is seen as unneeded. I know Wikipedia has a bad reputation for this kind of thing, there are lots of mistakes in things such as Welsh history that Cambrian Chronicles on youtube has found for example. But to be so overt, and proud about so open about not substaniating claims, is a sorry situation, and I do hope if you take a profession in later life you dont act like that if you become a laywer or anything else. I am listening to a brilliant investigative journalist at the moment, something called, "The Missing enigma", on youtube, and he is a brilliant journalist, must be from a very good school, or university, and he does the research, he refutes paranormal claims, and makes substantive videoes, about mossing persons, his vidoes are brilliant, refuting daft paranormal claims, analysing sources, really thinking about things. That is the kind of writing I respect, and you see from his reviews, lots of others do as well, he is brilliant, I dont have such respect for somebody who without any critical thinking just accepts what a source, commentator or political rival says about a other party, and certainly dont think the politico article that was sited, claiming Alba are socially conservative, is anything other than a offhand, uninterested, non expert offhand after thought mention about Scottish politics, and have a feeling the journalist himself, would be shocked if he heard somebody was citing such a offhand article as a reference for defintions of Scottish political parties (It would be like using the New York Times, articles on Scottish football, as your only source on Scottish football, when they perfectly reasnobly have nothing on it, instead of reading the Sunday Post or Sunday Mail, which have whole sections devoted to the brilliant subject). So I say, it is too late for this article, it is a very minor party, though even the most minor parties deserve genuine research on what they are, but hopefully the writers of this article, will in due course realise, that there is no substitute for good research, and that one day, they will be good at sourcing and substantiating sources, in a way that understands bias. Good luck with them learning that ability, its a good skill, and very useful. And dont make any daft insulting allegations about me, either, just as I criticised this article for unprofessionalism... 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:78A6:C6AD:8444:6C62 (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Another unprofessional element of this article, is how when I said, nobody would ever just take any random person as a source, and I gave a example of someone I thought most people would recognise as a example why you should never just accept what sources say off the internet, without substantiation, I said it would be like in a comedy sketch show somebody just taking quotations from David Icke, as if they were facts, when most people certainly I, would regard his statements as something I would not accept, and be indications of why you should not just take random statements off the internet, its why you need to substantiate claims and sources, as most people, certainly I would clearly disagree with his famously conspiratorial claims. To this I was then told by editors I was making a personal attack on the editors and comparing them to Holocaust deniers. I asked for a apology, and said I was never meaning to compare Wikipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, to be honest I cant see how anybody would feel I meant that, when I did not, instead of a apology, the statement was deleted. Please can I have a apology. I dont like that way that many wikipedia editors are so unprofessional, they do not substantiate sources, and when you dont agree with their unsubtantiated choices, they claim you are making a personal attack on them, this is a very unpleasant nasty way of doing things, so I would like a apology for that slander against me as well, I did not intend to make a personal attack on any body, and would like a apology from the Wikipedia editors who made that claim, and would like to know if this was just threatening behaviour to just force off views, and writers who dont agree with their unsubtantiated remarks. This article is extremely unprofessional, claiming a socially liberal party is socially conservative, with no substantive unbiased neutral sources, and then if you challenge that, you are accused of making personal attacks, this is extremely unfair and I would like a apology please. Not a meally mouthed one, a real one. The Alba party are socially liberal that is clear to see, as they have no social conservative beliefs. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I was never meaning to compare Wikipedia editors to Holocaust deniers, to be honest I cant see how anybody would feel I meant that, when I did not, instead of a apology, the statement was deleted - You've made comparisons to David Icke, a famous Holocaust denier, multiple times in this thread. And no, my comment wasn't deleted; it is still visible if you scroll up.

I would like a apology please. Not a meally mouthed one, a real one - Why would you get an apology? My comment just quoted you directly. AntiDionysius (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I did not compare ANY wikipedia editor to David Icke, surely common decency accepts I never made anything close to such a claim. And I certainly did not mean any of the people claiming Alba are socially conservative are like Holocuast deniers, I did not even mention holocaust denial. There seems to be a very aggressive nature to some Wikipedia editors, looking for reasons to criticise and dismiss people prepared to critique their sources, if you have not got the common decency to apologise for such a allegation then OK, thats your way of thinking. I for my part confirm, what any reasonable observer would see, that I was not comparing David Icke, or any Holocaust denier, with Wikipedia editors, and I would never do such a thing. I did not even reference David Icke as a Holocaust denier, I was just saying he is a example of why you should not just pick random sources off the internet, you should substantiate sources, and you should be prepared to substantiate all sources whether you agree with them or not. Thats professional behaviour. Maybe I should not have mentioned David Icke, as the point can be made without referencing him. You must always substantiate sources and decide if they have credance. That would be so, for people of good modern liberal views, as sometimes they can be politically biased, or somebody you dont agree with. If you dont feel you have to apologise, OK, that the way you see it, but you should learn to substantiate sources and see there is such a thing as bias. Alba Party are clearly a socially liberal party, and dopnt have any socially conservative beliefs WHATSOSEVER. i SAY THAT IN THE SAME WAY i WOULD NOT CATEGORIZE A SQUIRREL AS A COW, OR A HIPPO, its just good categorizing. 2A00:23C4:B3AE:3101:6463:27AE:4C80:E87B (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.