Talk:Alba Party

"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)

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)