Talk:Alba Party/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please can this article be protected ASAP

There's been a lot of vandalism, please can this article be protected from it like other controversial articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobSa (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots:. Bondegezou (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Mjroots (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Electoral Commission Says Laurie Flynn Leader of Party, Media Saying Salmond

Electoral Commission says Laurie Flynn Leader of Party (http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP12700), media is saying Salmond - who should be put in the infobox, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacobSa (talk • contribs) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@JacobSa Found a Sky article about it. Apparently she registered the party when it was made, but it seems that Salmond then took over from that. It looks like the Electoral Commission info just needs to be updated. Uses x (talk • {{reply to|Uses x}} • contribs) 17:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021 (2)

Ideology should be 'Scottish Nationalism' rather than 'Scottish Independence' Truether1111 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 22:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

Alba Party (Scotland Party/ Party of Scotland Durham Analytica (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 22:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

History

@Angryskies: The party was founded due to Alex Salmond's issues with the SNP, as explicitly stated in both sources provided. Please do not remove the information again until there is concensus to do so. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The press statement from the founder makes no mention that they founded the party based on Alex Salmond's issues: https://www.albaparty.org/alba_party_press_kit A separate sub-section regarding the lead up to Alex Salmond becoming might be a better idea.

@Angryskies: Salmond is the one who launched the party [1], he's the leader, and it's only being notable due to him. He is the party. Feel free to re-phrase the paragraph to make it clear he did not create the party, even if he did join very soon after it was created. My view here is that it's not appropriate to wipe correct information from the article as it helps people understand why Salmond joined it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Who founded this party?

Why does this article say that the Alba Party was founded by Laurie Flynn? I thought it was founded by Alex Salmond, on March 26 2021. Rollo August (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Flynn had previously registered the party. Bondegezou (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2021

In 'background' change "then depute leader Nicola Sturgeon" to "then party leader Nicola Sturgeon". Sturgeon was SNP leader in 2018, not depute leader.

Delete "Former Scottish Socialist Party and current Solidarity convenor, Tommy Sheridan supported the idea in comments made in July 2020. Polling conducted at around that time reported that 40% of those who voted SNP at the 2019 general election would back such a new party.[10][13]". This is not relevant information. 90.250.161.132 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've kept the polling as it's likely relevant, but I've removed the sentence regarding Tommy Sheridan. Your first request has been done as well. Thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 04:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph

The paragraph:

On 26 March 2021, former SNP MSP Dave Thompson stated that Action for Independence,[23] which he was the leader of, would be standing down all of their candidates, including former SNP MSP John Wilson; former SSP MSP Tommy Sheridan; former Labour MEP Hugh Kerr and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, in order to support Alba in the 2021 election.[24]

Belongs under the "2021 Scottish Parliament election" section, not the "founding" section.

I'd suggest it is also abbreviated and reworded to what is actually of interest:

On 26 March 2021, the leader of Action for Independence, former SNP MSP Dave Thompson, stated that the party would be standing down all their candidates in order to support Alba. [23] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:4946:8400:4E9:E257:C365:5BA7 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Aberdeenshire councillors

I note this news piece from today about two sitting Aberdeenshire councillors joining the Alba Party. What isn't clear to me is if they have only signed up as members as individuals, or whether they will sit on the council itself as Alba Party councillors. The Aberdeenshire council website still lists them as "Social Democratic Group" members, though I note it's a Sunday so possible the site just needs to be updated. Can anyone else shed some light? They should be added to the councillors section if and when it becomes clear. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Council websites can be slow to update and are a primary source. We have a secondary source that they've joined Alba. While I agree that it is possible that they have joined as individuals but do not intend to sit as Alba councillors, I suggest it is reasonable to take the plain reading of the secondary source. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

When did Salmond become leader?

The article claims that Salmond took over as leader of the new party on 25 March, the day of the party's launch. But the citation given doesn't actually say that Salmond became leader on that day. He was announced as leader, but he may have taken over before. I've not seen anything confirming precisely when Salmond became leader. Can we remove this claim to certainty? Bondegezou (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be enough to put "(announced)" under the date in the table? Ralbegen (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good idea! Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

That works. The Electoral Commission register still has Flynn as the leader as of this morning. It’s unclear therefore what formalities the Party has gone through to formally put him in place. DeCausa (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"Nationalist" vs "independence-supporting"

1st thread

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.

---

Use of the term “Nationalist” by previous editors in this article, is racist when applied to Scotland or Scottish politics. Because to call Scots “Nationalist” is to call Scots racist. Wikipedia allowing use of this term in this context is to show significant dis-respect to Scotland. Because any assertion as such that Scots are racist in this way is deeply offensive, because it is untrue. The term de-constructed shows why it was devised: it has been/ is used by London led politicians as a means of undue control of political narrative through suggesting that Scots are racist, when in fact, because the assertion we are racist is not true, use of the term itself is clearly racist (against Scotland). Cleverly masked use of racism in this way can obviously be described as “inverted racism” and as such is vile.

Making assertions that Scots are generally racist isn't just untrue, and therefore unfair, it is also deeply offensive. This will not be lost on people voewing this Wikipedia article should this inappropriate use of the word nationalist remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 26 March 2021 (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.

2nd thread

This is the third reversion I have had to make to this page to remove page vandalism which incorrectly portrays civic politics in Scotland as nationalist. The use of “Nationalist” in previous vandalism edits of this article is racist when applied to Scotland or Scottish politics because to call Scots “Nationalist” is to call Scots racist. Candidates for this party have demonstrated deep roots in civic culture.

Wikipedia allowing inappropriate use of the term in this incorrect context is to show significant dis-respect to Scotland.

Any assertion as such that Scots are generally racist is deeply offensive, because it is untrue.

The term de-constructed shows why it was devised: it has been/ is used by London led politicians as a means of undue control of political narrative through suggesting that Scots are racist, when in fact, because the assertion Scots are racist is not true, use of the term itself is clearly racist (against Scotland).

Cleverly masked use of racism in this way can obviously be described as “inverted racism” and as such is vile.

Making assertions that Scots are generally racist isn't just untrue, and therefore unfair, it is also deeply offensive.

This will not be lost on people viewing this Wikipedia article should this recurring page vandalism be sustained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

3rd thread

@Kez321: the sources explicitly state the Alba Party is "Nationalist", just as the SNP is. "Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty over its homeland", racism (which is what you have issue with) is something certain groups tag along with that. It is not a guarantee, and does not apply in this case. On Wikipedia, we don't apply our own descriptions or labels (why your post was closed by another user as per WP:FORUM), we gather the concensus among sources.

There is concensus for this description in the talk page of the Scottish National Party, for example. Please do not change information again until this changes. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Uses_X: The assertion that parties in Scotland supporting Scottish independence are nationalist - meaning racist - is baseless and a slur on all people living in Scotland.

It is also a clear dog whistle to the far right. And folks on here should know better.

Use of "independence supporting party" is clear and accurate and therefore must prevail as is obvious for a description of a party that has candidates with a history of deep political civic roots that are welcoming of all peoples, regardless of origin. Lots of sources show these candidates in this light.

Use of "Nationalist party" is cleary a political slur becasue it is used by detractors to inappropriatley, and wrongly, imply racism. This is clearly unfair and abusive.

It is thus clear that an accurate description rather than a slur must be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Most of the MSM in the Uk are against Scottish Independence (but not most of the people in Scotland as the last 22 polls show). Becasue of this until recently it has been acceptable to slur the case for Scottish independence, and thus the Scottish people, by using the term "nationalist" which becasue of it's definition, as used by detractors, is incorrect, abusive and unfair.

Becasue of this it constitutes inverted racism and thus is vile.

Clearly as I have said it is also a dog whistle to the far right.

In the past this was an easy slur that has historically originated from London led parties.

However it no longer has a place in Scotland's civic political debate as I have outlined.

Politics has moved on. Anyone who follows politics in Scotland can see that the independence parties are civic in nature which is accepted across the political spectrum.

All parties in Scotland supporting independence have deep civic roots and are welcoming of peoples of all ethnicities and backgrounds regardless of colour or any other factor.

Racism and inverted racism are vile. Wikipedia, I am sure, has a zero tolerance policy for racism.

ADMINS: editors engaged in basless racism smears ie inverted racism, should be barred.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs)

@Kez321: You're not suggesting edits in a neutral manner. It seems like you're editing with an agenda. Please see WP:RGW, especially the 3rd bullet point. — Czello 13:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

4th thread

Deliberate racist page vandalism on this page now requires moderator attention.

The inappropriate and therefore racist use of the word "nationalist" to describe civic politics in Scotland is itself racism becasue it suggests Scots engaged in civic politics are racist which they are not.

Therefore use of the word "nationalism" in the context is unfair, abusive and constitutes inverted racism, which is vile.

I have again reverted use of the word nationalism in the opening.

ADMINS: sanctions / bans are now necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kez321 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, you’ve reverted three times today. Fourth time and you’ll be blocked. Secondly, it’s your personal view that nationalist = racist. That view is without basis and is irrelevant. Thirdly, the only question relevant to wikipedia is whether reliable sources describe or don’t describe Alba as nationalist. What do you have to offer on that? DeCausa (talk) 10:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa, the explanaton for the revert was entirely reasonable, and precedent has it that using "nationalist" as a description is acceptable, so long as it is citation-backed Totalstgamer (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS is the main issue here. I've yet to see any reliable source that specifically calls the Alba Party Scottish nationalist. Until a reliable source can be provided that specifically meets the synthesis guidelines, we should leave this out. Helper201 (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Alex Salmond Will Lead a New Scottish Party Into May Election". Bloomberg. 26 March 2021.: “ Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, whose dispute with his successor has dominated local politics in recent weeks, will lead a new nationalist party that will contest an election in May.” DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The adjective 'nationalist' is problematic because of its mixed connotations. It can mean, as it does here, and it might also relative to Catalan, Basque or Welsh political organisations, that an aim is an independent country. Alternatively, as with, for example, English, French, German, Italian or Russian nationalism, it might connote xenophobia, racism or opposition to immigration or dislike of immigrants. Perhaps it might be better to substitute a clear description of the goals of the party (eg. independence in the short term)?     ←   ZScarpia   16:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not for us to protect/guide people's interpretations of the word "nationalist". Especially given that many of the members of Alba are former members of a party that literally had National in its name. We just say what the sources say. — Czello 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, “nationalism” in a global context can have more than one meaning, as ZScarpia suggests, depending on the context (including the ideologies of the Third Reich, Milošević etc). At its root though it is about self-determination. To quote from the lead (with citations) from our article on Nationalism:

Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).

References

I would argue that “nationalism” in the Scottish context is (a) pretty widely used and (b) is consistently used with this meaning and is synonymous with a movement for independence. I don’t believe it has the more unpleasant connotation. For example: historian Ben Jackson’s The Case for Scottish Independence: A History of Nationalist Political Thought in Modern Scotland DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think a bit of slack should be given for the OP, it's quite clear they don't quite understand the terminology being used. Yes, nationalism can have negative connotations, that doesn't mean that it always has those connotations in all circumstances; nor does it mean those connotations are necessary to the concept of nationalism. Alssa1 (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Czello, we are, however, required to edit neutrally. It's not enough that sources exist which state that the Alba party's politics are nationalist, what all reliable sources say, in the round, should be taken into account. If all the sources which state something about a party are hostile to the politics of that party, as UK national papers tend to be about the prospect of Scottish independence, then it is not neutral to state that something as a fact. It's not a case of trying to protect/guide people's interpretations. As far as guiding goes, any but the most disinterested newspapers which may be cited will probably already have done that, in any case. That's the nature of newspapers, at least UK ones, which tend to the partisan.

An example of an article where the conjunction "pro-Independence" is used instead of the word "nationalist": New Statesman - Stephen Bush - Alex Salmond’s Alba already exists: it’s called the Scottish Green Party, 27 March 2021.

    ←   ZScarpia   11:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that’s a little harsh on the British press and implies they are not RS on Scottish independence matters. The Scottish newspaper, The National, which supports independence, refers to one of its own writers as “nationalist” here. I don’t think they would if it had the connotation you suggest in Scottish politics. DeCausa (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa, you should re-read the article. In its opening sentence it refers to journalist Ruth Wishart as "pro-independence". It then goes on to describe her as a columnist for, apparently, The Nationalist. What it doesn't do is describe her as a nationalist. It looks to me as though what is meant is that she writes for The National itself. Otherwise, the most likely contender I can find as a publication with that name is one based in Tipperary.

Note that being biased does not stop publications being reliable sources. Obviously though, if sources cited tend to have a common bias, the end result is bias in the Wikipedia article. Something which sets UK papers apart from US ones is the degree to which their content is affected by opinion. Most of them have marked biases. Occasional claims to be impartial are made by individual UK journalists. I'd say that indicates a severe lack of self-awareness in those cases.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t disagree. But at WP we regularly use British broadsheets as RS, and they are definitely accepted as such - I think trying to exclude them on the basis you suggest is a ship that’s already sailed. As far as “the Nationalist” is concerned, yes I missed that they were using it as a pun! But it kind of supports the point doesn’t it? They wouldn’t do that if in Scottish politics it had that negative connotation. DeCausa (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote, bias does not exclude sources being counted as reliable. As a bit of light relief, here's a Janey Godley video with Nicola Sturgeon under the impression that Alex Salmond has re-formed ABBA: “I am glad Salmond has reformed Abba”.     ←   ZScarpia   12:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

None of these sources specifically say the Alba Party is Scottish nationalist. We have had a problem with parties such as Brothers of Italy where people edit back and forth that it is Italian nationalist, however sources only describe it as nationalist, so per WP:SYNTHESIS we can't say it's necessarily Italian nationalist as this not what sources state. We are running into a similar issue here. Also, I think one of the citations from The Guardian should be removed for Scottish nationalism. These are both not only from the same publication (The Guardian) but also the same author. Can we really call two pieces of writing from the same source and the same person two different sources of evidence for a claim? Helper201 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-issue. I’ve already given you a specific source (which is not the Guardian by the way). Here it is again: "Alex Salmond Will Lead a New Scottish Party Into May Election". Bloomberg. 26 March 2021.: “ Former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, whose dispute with his successor has dominated local politics in recent weeks, will lead a new nationalist party that will contest an election in May.” DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with DeCausa. This is entering WP:DEADHORSE territory now. I think it's safe to call them nationalist. — Czello 17:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

Please note that Councillor Brian Topping, Aberdeenshire (Fraserburgh ward) has joined Alba Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Please provide sourcing for any requested edits. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Breakaway party

An editor is making the case that the Alba Party split from the Scottish National Party when there is no source to confirm it is a splinter group in the same way that Social Democratic Party (UK, 1988) split from the Labour Party (UK) or more a recent example of Change UK from Labour and the Conservative Party (UK). The Alba Party as far as I'm aware is no different from other new Independence parties which have formed such as Scotia Future, Action for Independence and Independence for Scotland Party and therefore is not a splinter party.

Hi, I'm the editor making this case. Fundamentally the party is a group of SNP MPs, Cllrs, and former etc. forming a new political movement- the whole thing has been defined in multiple media sources as the "Salmond Sturgeon split" (although I understand why this would not exactly pass chalk as it is describing a split between individuals rather than parties, even if it is really talking about parties), while the Daily Record here https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/former-snp-mp-joins-alex-23820540 does define it as a 'breakaway independence party' and 'breakaway independence movement', quite clearly within the context referring to it as a breakaway from the SNP (again, where all of its MPs, Cllrs, etc. are coming from). ChangeUK and the (original) SDP, I note, do not actually have a citation that they were splits from Labour or Labour and the Conservatives, respectively- but due to their nature of their splits, such a citation is unnecessary. I don't quite see why it is not the same case here when it is as obvious (or arguably even more obvious), or even the more combative attitude against inclusion of what is a fairly banal note, even with a citation which does state quite clearly that it is a "breakaway independence party".BitterGiant (talk) 13:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There should be some consistency with the other Scottish indpendence parties: Scotia Future, Action for Independence and Independence for Scotland Party. The only difference with the Alba Party is its profile as soon as Alex Salmond joined it. While I understand your viewpoint, how can we consider it as a split from the Scottish National Party only after Salmond joined it and not consider the other parties mentioned as also having split from the SNP as well? Angryskies (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Unsure about Independence for Scotland Party (in the sense of knowing very little about them being a microparty), but yes Scotia and Action should also be listed as SNP splits? BitterGiant (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with BitterGiant. Use of 'split' in the infobox seems reasonable given that there is an ongoing move of elected officials - including MPs and councillors - defecting from the SNP to the Alba party. I think the argument that the party was not a split would be be stronger if the party had really established itself prior to the current move of members from the SNP (rather than being registered a month and a half before). The other smaller parties listed also appear to fit the bill of being - in-part - splinters. AfI is probably slightly different in that it appears to be more a mix of Solidarity with former SNP. MrPenguin21 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I also think it's legitimate to define it as a breakaway or split from the SNP. With the large number of prominent/senior figures moving to Alba, I think it's perfectly acceptable to describe it thusly. Alssa1 (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

List candidates - unnecessary information.

"On 29 March, former professional boxer Alex Arthur was announced as a list candidate, whilst former SNP MP George Kerevan joined later that day.[28][29]"

Does this information really need to be on the page about the party? Other wiki pages don't list every Tom, Dick, and Harry who joins the party or is a list candidate, so why do it here?

2001:16B8:4911:1700:217A:8769:AA01:70A4 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What often happens with new parties is editors fall foul of WP:NOTBLOG and WP:RECENTISM where they think that articles have to be real-time news tickers for each and every development. The truth, of course, is that articles should not be used for this purpose. If you see anything which ventures into the territory of updating in the form of blogs, rather than details in the form of an article, please edit or delete. doktorb _words^deeds 20:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Alba Pronunciation

Before this devolves into an edit war over 40 characters - Alba is a Gaelic word. Its equivalent in English is "Scotland", there is no separate English pronunciation of it and such mispronunciations made this week regarding this party should not be retrospectively defended using Wikipedia. The English translation of Alba (Scotland) is already mentioned in the article ("the Gaelic name for Scotland") to prevent any confusion over this. TrinePGTL (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2021‎ (UTC)

First of all sign your posts with 4 tildes (~~~~). Secondly, it’s irrelevant what you regard as “mispronunciation”. If WP:reliable sources are “mispronouncing” it we follow suit. That’s the way Wikipedia works - read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Thirdly, the name of the party is a mix of languages. The name isn’t Pàrtaidh na h-Alba. The word Paris isn’t pronounced the same in “I’m going to Paris” and “Je vais à Paris”. Fourthly, per WP:BRD you need to put it back to the way it was until there is consensus to change it. DeCausa (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The English word for Paris is "Paris", the English word for Alba is "Scotland". There is no English version of the word Alba, the mispronunciations made this week do not give legitimacy to further mispronunciations promoted here. Furthermore, starting a Wikipedia edit war by reverting someone's reversion and then accusing others of doing the same by rolling back your destructive edits, then demanding them to take things to the talk page when they have already done so is not helpful Wikipedia behaviour, please do not repeat it in future. TrinePGTL (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:BRD? DeCausa (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Do not edit war. Once discussion has begun, restoring one's original edit without taking other users' concerns into account may be seen as disruptive." Please note. TrinePGTL (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)"

Good grief - that’s referring to the person making the change. I.e you! DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You made the first revert, I will now leave this with Vitalis196 who has made it clear. The correct pronunciation is promoted both by the BBC in their channel of the same name [1] and by speakers explaining the translation [2]. This pronunciation is the clear primary use of the word and mispronunciations should not be promoted by Wikipedia. TrinePGTL (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur. I made the first edit to remove this, it has been reverted three times. Yet to see any evidence of this purported English pronunciation. Vitalis196 (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Yet to see a reliable source endorsing this supposed English pronunciation of Alba. If you can find one we can discuss it. Vitalis196 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

BBC Newsnight clip here at 24 seconds. Surprisingly, Alex Salmond repeats the same pronunciation a couple of seconds later. Now self-revert. DeCausa (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

One person using one pronunciation a couple of times on the news isn't a reliable source. No intentions of self reverting. Be advised that if you revert again you are in danger of breaking the Three revert rule. Vitalis196 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The BBC is a WP:RS. The leader of the party saying it the sameway, whilst not a reliable source, makes your position ridiculous. Your a new editor and I get that you don’t know how things work, but this is not the way to go about it. DeCausa (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a new editor. Not new to the Gaelic language. Not continuing this discussion. Good Day. Vitalis196 (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You’re on only 170 edits. If you have edited under another account please note WP:SOCK. Here’s ITV at 8 seconds DeCausa (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

and for God’s sake here’s Alex salmond explicitly saying on Channel 4 News that both pronunciations are to be used for the Party! DeCausa (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

At 12 seconds Alex Salmond says “We’ll be campaigning for the Alba [ˈal̪ˠapə] and the Alba [/ˈælbə/] Party “ DeCausa (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the version from before the bold removal of the English pronunciation. I think a quality dictionary is a reasonable reliable source to establish that a word exists in the English language and how it's pronounced in said language, considering WP:DICTS clarity on their limitations. Words in non-English languages have different pronunciations in English, and that's fine. Ralbegen (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't really object to that source but I think the current wording is misleading. While to an English speaker Alba naturally reads as ælbə (which is what I suspect the dictionary pronunciation is based off of), when using Alba to refer to Scotland (as opposed to, for example, the Spanish Duke of Alba) the "Gaelic" pronunciation "al̪ˠapə" is almost exclusively used.

Where the party name is a Gaelic word, it really ought to be pronounced as it would be in Gaelic, even when speaking in English. Whereas with the current wording it could be understood that when speaking English it is correct to call it ælbə.

I'd like to hear what you think about that though. Vitalis196 (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To add, as a Gaelic speaker I agree entirely with what TrinePGTL said in the original post and I'm surprised by the dictionary, personally I'd regard the dictionary as inaccurate but that might not fit so well with wikipedia's rules and policies. Vitalis196 (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been bold and made a compromise edit which I think solves this issue Vitalis196 (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the divergence between how non-Gaelic speakers (like Salmond) and Gaelic speakers pronounce the word, would it not be worthwhile to include both modes of pronunciation? The word may derive from Gaelic, but that doesn't make it the only acceptable way of pronouncing the word. We as English speakers don't refer to Germany as Deutschland, or Japan as Nihon or China as Zhonghua. Alssa1 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Alssa1. If a word comes into language A from language B, then how it is pronounced in language A is not necessarily how it is pronounced in language B. For more examples, we as English speakers do not pronounce "futon" or "karaoke" as a Japanese speaker does, yet both words come from Japanese. We do not pronounce "Paris" as a French speaker does, even though we use the same spelling. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. There’s also political issue going on. In the Channel 4 clip I linked to earlier in this thread, the cover text says “We spoke to Alex Salmond and put it to him that he’s upset a lot of Gaelic speakers with the pronunciation of his new party’s name”. The clip then shows Salmond responding by saying that he’s using both the Gaelic and English language pronunciation of Alba, with the implication that they are of equal status in his mind. DeCausa (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou - Alba is not a word that has come into language A from language B. The language B word is "Alba", the language A word is "Scotland". The English word for "Paris" is "Paris" and therefore it is not a comparable situation to this. English speakers mispronouncing a Gaelic word does not make it a new English word. TrinePGTL (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are speaking English, you use English phonemes and stress patterns. If you are speaking Gaelic, you use Gaelic phonemes and stress patterns. You cannot necessarily just drop a word from one language into another language and preserve its form entirely. It doesn't matter whether the word has been used in the adopting language for centuries or for days, the same principle applies. See Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones for an RS on the topic. English speakers are talking about the Alba Party, ergo it has an English pronunciation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@TrinePGTL: I'm afraid you're very wrong. The 'mispronunciation' of foreign words in other languages is precisely how our pronunciation of words comes into existence. For example the reason why we pronounce Japan, as Japan rather than 'Nihon' is because (from the Japan wiki page): "The name Japan is based on the Chinese pronunciation and was introduced to European languages through early trade. In the 13th century, Marco Polo recorded the early Mandarin or Wu Chinese pronunciation of the characters 日本國 as Cipangu. The old Malay name for Japan, Japang or Japun, was borrowed from a southern coastal Chinese dialect and encountered by Portuguese traders in Southeast Asia, who brought the word to Europe in the early 16th century. The first version of the name in English appears in a book published in 1577, which spelled the name as Giapan in a translation of a 1565 Portuguese letter." Alssa1 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Bondegezou - If you are using the word "Alba" then you are speaking Gaelic, not English. English speakers are talking about the Alba Party, which uses a Gaelic word, and therefore when they say it they're speaking Gaelic and should pronounce it correctly. English speakers already frequently do this when they're using French phrases (eg. Apropos, Bon voyage, Carte blanche, Coup d'etat, Déjà vu, Faux pa) and they'd be correctly criticised for pronouncing them wrong if they mangled the pronunciation, even if the rest of their sentence was in English. Again for Alssa1 - The English word for "Alba" is "Scotland" and English speakers are free to use the English translation if they want to use the English word. TrinePGTL (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@TrinePGTL: given the fact that the word "Alba" derives from Brythonic, and that Brythonic term derives from the Greek 'Ἀλβίων' maybe you should be pronouncing it in the common Brythonic or Greek fashion? Otherwise Gaelic speakers are mispronouncing the word... These appeals to linguistic-pronunciation-supremacy is rather silly imho. Alssa1 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If I say the sentence, "The Alba Party poses a challenge for the SNP in the forthcoming election," I am not speaking English for the first word, then speaking Gaelic for the word 'Alba', then speaking English for the rest of the sentence. I am just speaking English. Bon voyage, Carte blanche, Coup d'etat, Déjà vu and Faux pas are not pronounced in English as they are in French. For example, Wiktionary gives different pronunciations here for English and French. Bondegezou (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: further to that, you could also bring in the fact that we don't pronounce Greek words like 'Galaxy', 'Cemetery', 'Cynicism', 'Gymnasium', 'Marathon' etc etc in the Ancient or Modern Greek fashion. Alssa1 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

If the Alba Party ever formed a junta with the SNP, I wonder how that sentence should be pronounced? DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, in Scotland (at least the parts with lots of Gaelic place names), I should think there would be a tendency to pronounce it the Castilian Spanish way, with the 'j' as a Scottish 'ch' and the 'u' as an English 'oo'.     ←   ZScarpia   14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact there is a single correct way to pronounce this word, which is the language in which it is written, has now been further reinforced by a reputable source, the Daily Record[3]: "The word 'Alba' is Gaelic, therefore speakers of the language say it should be said in their tongue." TrinePGTL (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@TrinePGTL: There is not a single way of pronouncing it, though -- as the Salmond video says both are acceptable. — Czello 18:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex Salmond is not a reputable source, he is a politician with a political interest in promoting the idea he did not make a mistake when he mispronounced the name of his own party. TrinePGTL (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@TrinePGTL: just because an article exists in the Daily Record saying that some Gaelic speakers would prefer it to be pronounced in the Gaelic fashion has no bearing on this article, or what we should do regarding this issue. Alssa1 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@TrinePGTL: Salmond is a reliable source for how his party name is pronounced. He's not necessarily saying that "Alba" is pronounced one way in all contexts, but in the context of his own political party then it's ridiculous to assume it can only be pronounced one way. — Czello 16:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In an article on Irish politics where an Irish Gaelic word is used, what would matter would be how the word was pronounced in Ireland. In an article on Welsh politics where a Welsh word was used, what would matter would be how the word was pronounced in Wales. How the word was pronounced outside those areas, including by television journalists in London, would be irrelevant. Similarly, in an article about, say, Edinburgh, the fact that in the United States, they pronounce the name of the place as Edinboro is neither here nor there. I should think that what the Manual of Style says about National Varieties of English may have some relevance.     ←   ZScarpia   14:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
(by the way, the Alba in the title Duke of Alba, refers to the Salamancan township of Alba de Tormes, not to Scotland)

• Do I understand correctly that some people here argue that we should use native pronunciations in ledes? If so, thousands of India-related articles will need to be edited so that Indian words like mantra or Gandhi no longer include that stupid pronunciation that only the Englishmen use. Yay, big editing ahead of us! — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles which it is proper to write in Indian English should be decolonised. It shouldn't matter how the descendants of the foreign invaders back in the UK mispronounce words. With proper names such as Gandhi, everybody should be striving to use the 'correct' pronounciation (Scottish variant spelling). There will be words such as bungalow and mantra, though, which have entered the universal English lexicon and with which occasions arise when the use of no single variant of English is appropriate.     ←   ZScarpia   11:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been bugging me for a while so I did some more research.

In this conversation the "al̪ˠapə" prounciation has always been referred to as the "Gaelic" pronunciation, but that's not strictly true. In Scottish English, Alba has always been pronounced as "al̪ˠapə". Scottish English originated out of language contact between Scots and English, but also Scottish Gaelic so pronunciations and words from Scots and Gaelic prevail in modern day Scottish English. As part of the Gaelic substratum of the language, Gaelic pronunciations prevail for words with Gaelic origins. This would be the case with Alba, the origins of which are in Gaelic and the "al̪ˠapə" pronunciation has long been used in Scotland. This pronounciation is equally as valid in Scottish English as it is or Gaelic, and there's a fair amount of media coverage to back this up if we want to go down that route.

Wikipedia doesn't have the best record dealing with the Scots language, or Scottish English, there's a tendency to ignore it, deem it trivial, or a practical joke. But, Scottish English is as valid as any national variety of English. Wikipedia:ENGVAR states that Wikipedia prefers no single variety of English, but in articles with clear national connections (like this one!) the formal English of that nation should be used. So I think a strong case can be made that "al̪ˠapə" should take precedence, and it should be clear that when using the party's name while speaking in English, "al̪ˠapə" is the correct pronunciation.

Those speaking American or British English without being aware of the Scottish pronunciation will naturally pronounce it /ˈælbə/ in any case, so I am unsure why they would require a pronunciation guide. But, if /ˈælbə/ is included it ought to be marked as the British or American English pronunciation to make clear that it isn't pronounced this way in Scottish English, and indeed there is no singular English pronunciation of this word. Vitalis196 (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you hoping we have forgotten the examples given to you above of Alex Salmond saying /ˈælbə/ ? Thincat (talk) 11:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Alex Salmond is not a reputable source, he is a politician with a political interest in promoting the idea he did not make a mistake when he mispronounced the name of his own party. TrinePGTL (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thincat: I don't think what Alex Salmond has said really contradicts my point? As I said, /ˈælbə/ is an entirely acceptable pronunciation, but in Scottish English the "al̪ˠapə" pronounciation is primarily used. Also I'd rather you assumed good faith, than assume that I was trying to decieve you. Vitalis196 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source for saying that there’s a difference in pronunciation of the word between English in Scotland and elsewhere? the criticism that Salmond has had has come from the Gaelic angle specifically. i haven’t seen anything criticizing him for adopting a non-Scots pronunciation. In other words, WP:ENGVAR doesn’t apply. DeCausa (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: It's a convention of Scottish English that the pronunciations of Gaelic derived words will usually follow their Gaelic origins. A cursory glance at the Scottish Media would show that this is usually the case and that it is almost always pronounced "al̪ˠapə". Unless we're engaging in the fiction that anyone who pronounces it "al̪ˠapə" is actually speaking Gaelic, I think the fact that it's backed up by convention and that people in Scotland generally say "al̪ˠapə" even when speaking English is evidence enough. So I can't see why WP:ENGVAR shouldn't apply. Vitalis196 (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That’s fine, but produce a WP:RS that there’s a Scots pronunciation which differs from other pronunciations for the purpose of ENGVAR. Otherwise it’s just WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Existing sources back up this position. To be clear, there is a difference between the Scots Language and Scottish English. Vitalis196 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven’t seen a source that there’s a Scottish English pronunciation of the word which differs from other pronunciations for the purpose of ENGVAR. Could you provide a link to it please. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

What level of sourcing is usually required for a pronunciation? The fact that it is pronounced that way in Gaelic and that Gaelic words are typically spoken using the Gaelic pronunciation in Scottish English isn't disputed, which we've covered already. If you're looking for an example of this in use, we could use almost any broadcast coverage of the Alba Party. The video of Alex Salmond you linked to above also showed him using this pronunciation while speaking English. I don't see what more there is to prove here. Vitalis196 (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You stated earlier “ Wikipedia:ENGVAR states that Wikipedia prefers no single variety of English, but in articles with clear national connections (like this one!) the formal English of that nation should be used. So I think a strong case can be made that "al̪ˠapə" should take precedence, and it should be clear that when using the party's name while speaking in English, "al̪ˠapə" is the correct pronunciation.” For that to work as an argument you need to have a WP:RS that "al̪ˠapə" is Scottish English and /ˈælbə/ is not. If you can’t provide an RS for your assertion then it’s a WP:OR red herring. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You said above, /ˈælbə/ is an entirely acceptable pronunciation. If so, why did you remove this from the article? — Czello 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Czello: I removed According to Salmond, it is also sometimes pronounced /ˈælbə/ in English. because Salmond's opinion on the pronounciation seemed trivial, and the article cited gave several people's opinions on the matter. I presumed the /ˈælbə/ pronunciation would be the natural way any native English speaker not familiar with Scottish English would pronounce it so I didn't think it needed a pronunciation guide, and as perWP:ENGVAR the native pronounciation ought to take precedence. If you wanted to also add that it can be pronounced /ˈælbə/ in British/American English then I have no objection. Vitalis196 (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree that his view is trivial (given that he is the leader after all) -- I also added that to separate it from the correct, native pronunciation. Similarly, the way it worded ensured that the native pronunciation took precedence. However, I'll go with your wording, which is fine by me. — Czello 21:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your edit just made has a shot at making everyone happy! Or everyone equally unhappy :) DeCausa (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll settle for equal unhappiness; it's the nature of compromise. The only main change I made to Vitalis196's wording is to remove "American", as I suspect the Alba Party won't enter American English particularly often. — Czello 21:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you quite sure about that? DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not! Although at least this article is specific to the political party. — Czello 21:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also happy with Czello's edit, I think it strikes a good compromise. TrinePGTL (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Social democracy

Hello all! Social democracy was added recently without any sources or citations (not by me), and rightfully removed (not by me), however I have pulled the parties own website into the equation as it states that the party itself believes in social democracy, this is a first party source, it is now under my assumption that this should therefore be re-added, should it be? Thoughts?

Source: https://www.albaparty.org/about_alba - Quote:"...The promotion of all Scottish interests, and the building of an economically successful and socially-just independent country, through the pursuit of a social-democratic programme."

B. M. L. Peters (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we need third party references for the infobox. First party sources wouldn't be reliable enough as it's a self descriptor. — Czello 06:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll keep an eye out for third party sources, in the mean time I have not found any. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 12:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

While third-party sources are always prefeered, I think the ideology-section of the main body at the very least should mention that the party identifies as social democratic, this should be acceptable as we would at least make it clear that this is how they themselves identify, and not necessarily what they have been described as by an expert. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2021

Add comment about the leak of member data as reported in the Herald newspaper.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19192899.alba-technical-fault-reveals-thousands-names-signed-party-events/ GeorgeMBlack1 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please make clear what comment you want to be added. Thanks, J850NK (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add

"The Herald newspaper reported that thousands of people had their data leaked just hours after Alex Salmond's Alba Party was launched."

Source: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19192899.alba-technical-fault-reveals-thousands-names-signed-party-events/ GeorgeMBlack1 (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 Scottish Parliament election

There is a list of criticisms and micro details such as of "he said" and "she said" style that is inconsistent with comparable pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Party and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Conservatives. I would appreciate an experienced editor confirming if this is appropriate and if so, if it would be supported to add similar sections to the other political parties in Scotland.

Parties with longer histories have more that can be said about them. Commentary around parties, including criticisms of them, is appropriate content for Wikipedia, but sometimes that material will be found in election or other articles (e.g. the referendum article and the possible 2nd referendum article). Alba being newer, their article will be more focused on recent events. But, yes, commentary of other parties, including criticism, can be added to other parties' pages. Try using the best sourcing available, so reliable secondary or tertiary sources, preferably academic sources or books over newspaper coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Councillors table

There's currently a table listing the names and situations of every councillor who has joined the party. I don't think this is useful for a party which has representatives in the House of Commons and I'm not sure how useful it would be even otherwise. The fact that councillors have defected to the party is worth noting, as is the number and some detail, but a short section of prose like at Change UK or Brexit Party would be much more appropriate weight than a large table. Wikipedia isn't a directory or an indiscriminate collection of information. Ralbegen (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Would a table showing how many Alba councillors sit on each council be an acceptable alternative?

Council	Councillors
Aberdeenshire Council	3
North Lanarkshire Council	2
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	1
Glasgow City Council	1
Inverclyde Council	1
North Ayrshire Council	1
Stirling Council	1
West Dunbartonshire Council	1

I agree that listing every councillor with ward name and date of defection is unnecessary detail. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the most useful parts of that—the figures for Aberdeenshire and North Lanarkshire—can be noted in prose instead of a table. Something like Following Salmond's announcement, eleven councillors joined the party by the end of March. All eleven had been elected as SNP candidates, though three had already left that party. Three councillors on Aberdeen council joined the party and two on North Lanarkshire council., with room to add if more defect down the line or if Alba defections change status of council control or if Alba councillors join a ruling coalition. Ralbegen (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that individual councillors are notable under Wikipedia rules, and having a running total of councillor numbers is certainly not acceptable either (it's not something other political party articles have and with good reason.) You might find this being removed entirely once things have settled down. You can use a setting within the infobox to show the total number of councillors across Scotland. You should think twice about listing each and every council, if there is only one Cllr per authority, notability concerns can be raised. doktorb _words^deeds 06:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Not notable for their own articles, yes, but I'm not sure why that prevents them from being mentioned here? I think my suggestion of a table is a concise way of putting information across, as is Ralbegen's prose summary. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 08:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Inside the article the concern is for due weight and WWIN rather than notability. I think "SNP councillors join the party" as part of the initial defection incident is worth noting, though it shouldn't be heavily or prominently included; and I think a table grants prominence. I think it's less appropriate to cover in-depth here than for a party like the For Britain Movement because Alba has two MPs, and will always be a party which has had MPs now. Ralbegen (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Could we replace the Councillors section with something much more simple and in keeping with the way this is reported for other parties? For example: "The Alba Party had 11 councillors in Local Government by the end of March 2021. All were elected as SNP representatives in the 2017 Scottish local elections, although 3 had already left. By mid-April the number had risen to 12." The information about which council etc is not really relevant to the Alba Party page. Psychomike (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Psychomike: Regarding this edit, the source looks very much like WP:SELFPUB. I didn’t revert you because your solution is actually an improvement so I’m hoping there’s a reason why it’s not SELFPUB! DeCausa (talk) 08:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@DeCausa: I noticed other entries on Wiki using this as a source for councillor data and thought it offered an eloquent solution to the overcitation. I notice that some other parties don't actually offer any source for councillor numbers. I hope that it doesn't count as SELFPUB! Psychomike (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a source that UK politics pages have traditionally considered reliable. WP:SELFPUB does allow exceptions like this, if one feels that policy applies. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Thanks for that clarification! I'm not sure that the info about two of the councils is really relevant (re: your edit to put that info back), and necessitates this being constantly updated. I was trying to avoid that situation. I noticed that you also updated the numbers bar to 12 again - Open Coucil Data lists only 11. Psychomike (talk) 09:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

SELFPUB does have an exception: “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” The only information I can see on the website about who publishes this is here. From that it’s clearly the work of one individual, rather than an organisation or other recognised publisher, but I can’t see any reference to who that individual is. DeCausa (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

For info, I’ve raised a query here at WP:RSN. DeCausa (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Psychomike: I may have made a mistake over the numbers bar. I thought there was news of a 12th defection that Open Council wasn't yet listing? I think if you add up all the names listed in the multitude of citations we had listed, you got 12...? Anyone else remember here? Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you're right. This one isn't included yet: https://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/news/people/hawick-councillor-joins-alba-party-3200068#gsc.tab=0%20another%20councillor%20has%20joined%20the%20alba%20party Psychomike (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We could use the Open Council citation + that one then to support 12. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Social conservatism

Can we reach a consensus on whether it's reasonable to list social conservatism as one of the party's ideologies? Source one quotes Dr Rhys Crilley of the University of Glasgow who explicitly describes Alba as socially conservative. Source two quotes Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh who describes Alba as "aiming in particular for the support of pro-independence voters who are more socially conservative". In my view these third-party sources are reliable and authoritative. PelicanPrize (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) Rhys Crilley, looking at his official bio, focuses on "Nuclear Weapons; Critical Approaches to Security; Social Media and International Political Communication; Popular Culture and World Politics; and Visual Global Politics"[4]. Making him an authority on Scottish politics in a bit of a stretch. (2) Jan Eichhorn doesn't term Alba or its ideology as socially conservative; he only describes so the electorate targeted by the party. It's not the same.

In my view, these two are absolutely insufficient for an unattributed statement. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest Kashmiri is being overly picky about sources. These are reliable sources. Reliable sources don't have to be the world's best experts on a particular topic. We have to respect WP:BALANCE and if there was a tonne of academic literature specialising on the study of the Alba Party that said something different, then sure, we should listen to that... but there isn't. There is not that much written about Alba. As far as academic analyses go, Crilley and Eicchorn are a good start. Let's use them.

That all said, I suggest a good way to proceed is to focus on the main article text first. Use those citations there, in a context where we can construct prose to reflect the details of what is said. Once we've got that right, we can then re-visit the infobox. But the infobox should come second, once we've agreed on article text, not first. Bondegezou (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I propose we revisit the term "social conservatism" for Alba Party when Google Search shows more than 5 instances of its usage in reasonably reliable sources. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guidance that would support a crude count like that, so no. But we do need to respect WP:BALANCE. If there are further articles about Alba's positioning that aren't currently cited, I suggest editors share them here and we can consider what they say in the round. If there are articles that contradict the ones discussed here, then that would obviously have a bearing on this discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"5 instances" was an indirect way of saying: the term has got an abysmally low number of sources.

To formally state the ideology of a political party we require much more than two or even five passing mentions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:00, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guidance that would support that view. But we do need to satisfy WP:V and WP:BALANCE. I remain of the view that it would be more useful if you could offer additional citations rather than complaining about the number being used. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Bondegezou's suggestion is reasonable. Let's improve the article and the infobox can be revisited at a later date. PelicanPrize (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"Depute"  ?

I notice this appears in place of "Deputy" throughout the article so it's clearly not just a typo. Can anyone explain why this spelling is used and could a quick explanation be worked into the article? Romomusicfan (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Depute is a Scottish English word that means the same as the standard British English word "deputy". It's used by the SNP too, and included as an alternative phrasing in our article on deputy leaders. I don't think it needs explanation, does it? It's pretty self-explanatory. Ralbegen (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I'll take your word for it, but when I first saw it in there just now, it looked like a typo. Then I saw there were a whole bunch and thought maybe it was vandalism. But it had been there for ages and previous attempts to change it had been reverted. So either it was all some wierd in joke (like the term "lede" on Wikipedia) or it was the official spelling, in which case I reckon some explanation is needed.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Anyhow, I found the text note and I've put in a footnote instead explaining what you've explained to me in a few short words.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think it is self-explanatory - I have seen a lot of passing editors/IPs trying to "correct" it to deputy. — Czello 13:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Well I've done something about it now. Possibly we may also need to cross link the footnote to one or two other occurences of the word "depute" in the article. Romomusicfan (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the footnote's a good solution, nice one. — Czello 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Also can I confirm here if "depute" is Scottish English or the Scots language? Romomusicfan (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Scottish English, you can see it given as an example on that page. Ralbegen (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming so I know I don't need to change that bit of the note. Romomusicfan (talk) 10:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Lynch's comments

I had forgotten to keep an eye on this section. In June, I flagged concerns about the above section when written as:

In April 2021, Central Scotland candidate Margaret Lynch made remarks to the Alba Party's Women's Conference, which she later expanded upon in a letter to The Scotsman, criticising the LGBT+ rights organisation ILGA for endorsing a "Feminist Declaration" issued by the "Women's Rights Caucus". The document contained ambiguous references to adolescent sexuality that Lynch interpreted as a "call for the elimination of laws that limit the legal capacity of adolescents to consent to sex".[43] Several groups affiliated to ILGA are Scottish and had received funding from the SNP-led Scottish government; certain media outlets interpreted Lynch's remarks as a claim that these groups themselves (as opposed to ILGA) wanted to lower the age of consent to 10 years old. The SNP described this as "deeply homophobic and untrue" and Lynch was condemned by Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie. Stonewall called on Lynch to "retract her false allegation and apologise",[44] and ILGA denied advocating for a lower age of consent,[45] although neither organisation referenced the Feminist Declaration specifically, while LGBT Youth Scotland distanced themselves from the declaration stating that "at no point were we asked to sign up to this document".[46] Lynch's Scotsman piece stated that she had never accused either Stonewall or ILGA of "condon[ing] paedophilia". When asked by The Scotsman whether Lynch's position was also that of the party, Alba refused to comment.[47] Former SNP councillor Austin Sheridan left the Alba Party, describing Lynch's comments as "hideous" and stating there was "no way I can be part of a party that tolerates such views."[48]

The citation for the first two sentences is an opinion piece written by Margaret Lynch justifying her remarks in the wake of criticism. As WP:Reliable sources points out, opinion pieces are reliable only for statements attributed to that author, but not for statements of fact. We cannot use Margaret Lynch's account of the controversy around her declaration as a source for anything other than explicitly attributed comments from her. Secondary and news reportage is preferred. A statement like "the document contained ambiguous references to adolescent sexuality" does not belong in wikivoice: it is Lynch's defence for linking LGBT organisations to child sexual abuse *after* criticism and should be framed as such. A statement like "certain media outlets interpreted Lynch's remarks as a claim that these groups themselves wanted to lower the age of consent to 10 years old" also does not belong in wikivoice: Lynch may have felt that newspaper coverage of her comments were unfair, but we cannot present Lynch's defence as a statement of fact about press coverage. Wikivoice is also used to interpret and cast doubt on the unequivocal statements of ILGA Europe, LGBT Youth Scotland, and Stonewall: reflecting Margaret Lynch's personal viewpoint in her opinion piece, not their statements. The version I have reinstated with some tweaks uses non-editorial news coverage to summarise her statement, the reaction to it, and provides her comments framed as such. I hope it's a little clearer, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.251.177.87 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)