Talk:Left Unity (UK)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (Legitimate political party with multiple third party sources confirming it's existence. No case to be made for it's deletion. This was discussed at Talk:Left Unity (European Parliament)) --G-13114 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

Left Unity is a brand new political party in which there is considerable interest on the British Left, as can be seen both from the details of its founding conference and numerous discussions about it online. The conference was attended by about 400 delegates and the party already has more than 1,000 members. It aims to become the main party to the left of the Labour Party. Even if its inclusion in Wikipedia is premature, I believe it will reappear here quickly. (I am not a member of the party, by the way, but have been observing its progress.) --Simon Barne (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's not much point in deleting it, as it will only be recreated again pretty soon. G-13114 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Membership of 1000, coverage in reliable sources including The Guardian and Financial Times, I also believe that this makes sufficient claims to notability to disqualify it from CSD:A7. Valenciano (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I removed the tag, as this clearly meets all the criteria listed at WP:ANS G-13114 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Extreme/Far-Left

With the vote at 'Left Unity' on whether or not ISIS ‘Has Progressive Potential’, and several references to the group being Far-Left. Would this now be a good time to edit their political standing? [[1]], [[2]] User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

No, since it's doubtful that either would qualify as a reliable source, and neither source uses those terms. G-13114 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No, since the proposal received just four votes, and the majority of conference laughed it down. RolandR (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The party put the proposal forward though. It doesn't matter if it was rejected or adopted. They came up with a proposal that reflects their current standing. As for it only coming from one source, one of the sources has a video on it showing exactly what happened so how can it be doubted?User:RoverTheBendInSussex (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2014 (GMT)

"The party" did not put the proposal forward; two members did, and the party conference overwhelmingly rejected this. All that this incident shows is that Left Unity is a democratic party, in which any member has the right to move a policy motion at conference. What the conference actually agreed was a motion which stated "The IS has brutally oppressed anyone who does not support their virulently reactionary, fundamentalist interpretation of Sunni Islam.... the IS is a viciously reactionary organisation which needs to be prevented from carrying out its murderous and genocidal agenda". It is dishonest to quote part of a (reactionary) position overwhelmingly rejected by the party, while ignoring what the party actually did agree, in an attempt to misleadingly portray LU as an "extreme left" party. RolandR (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted the Controversies section. By definition a controversy suggests a closely contested issue where a substantial minority supported a motion. There have been controversies in Left Unity over issues like Safe Spaces but not on this motion that was only supported by its mover and one other person. It is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article on Left Unity. DartmoorDave (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Party of the European Left affiliation

The only support I can find for Left Unity's affiliation to the Party of the European Left is from Left Unity themselves. Is there any source available from the European Left confirming their membership? --Nizolan (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Euroscepticism

Left Unity is a member of Party of European Left which is Eurosceptic. If there are no objections I will add itApollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are objections, which is why you have repeatedly been reverted. Left Unity is explicitly not Eurosceptic. It supported a Remain vote in the referendum, it is affiliated to the pro-EU Another Europe is Possible, and it has consistently opposed and criticised Eurosceptic groups and views. If you continue to add this false, and unsourced, description then your account is likely to be blocked from editing. RolandR (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me your definition of eurosceptic? I don't think you know what it means. Euroscepticism isn't wanting to leave the EU it's being critical of EU polices which Left Unity clearly is. See Euroscepticism#Terminology. Left Unity is soft eurosceptic

I do not need to give you my definition. You are edit-warring to add an unsourced and incorrect label to the article, and the onus is on you to justify this. RolandR (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article. "At its conference in November 2015, the party adopted documents describing the EU as "a reactionary anti-working class unreformable institution" This is clearly soft euroscepticism which is defined by its coiners as "where there is NOT a principled objection to European integration or EU membership but where concerns on one (or a number) of policy areas lead to the expression of qualified opposition to the EU, or where there is a sense that ’national interest’ is currently at odds with the EU’s trajectory."Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your proposed edit, and there is no source for the description.Your argument above is unacceptable synthesis. Unless and until you can point to a reliable source which describes Left Unity as eurosceptic, you may not make this edit. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Which description? It clealry meets the definition. Its not a synthesis.

You are once again adding this unsupported and unjustified describer. Please provide a reliable source and establish a consensus on this talk page before you again attempt to add this to the article; otherwise, your edits could be considered disruptive and you could face editing sanctions. RolandR (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And you have once again reverted without bothering to discuss this. Left Unity called and campaigned for a Yes vote in the EU referendum, is a member of the pro-EU group Another Europe is Possible, supports continued British membership of the EU, and has criticised (and been criticised by) those parties on the left which called for a British withdrawal from the EU. The claim that LU is a Eurosceptic party is totally unsourced, is false, and gives a misleading impression of the politics of the party. I have requested a Third Opinion here, and after I post this I will revert this unsourced and false claim from the article. Please desist from adding it again until you can provide a source and have established a consensus that this edit is correct and valid. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Euroscepticism has nothing to do with wanting to leave the EU. I suggest you inform yourself on the term by read the euroscepticism page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your condescending tone, and I would merely point out that 1) Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source for adding claims to articles, and 2) the article on Party of the European Left does not claim that this is a Eurosceptic group. So all we have is tour own unsupported assertion, extrapolated from your interpretation of a Wikipedia article. This is what we call synthesis, and is not permitted. Unless you can produce a reliable source and establish a consensus for this description, your edit is not permissible. RolandR (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? How am I being condescending? The only condescending one here is you1) I know I never claimed it was. 2) Party of European Left is a member of the GUE-NGL (see source in infobox) which is Eurosceptic. Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

3O Response: As far as I can tell, no one has provided any sources for the claim that Left Unity is Eurosceptic, so the claim should not be included in the article. The only support that has been provided is a somewhat vague quote that does not unambiguously indicate that the party is Eurosceptic. If reliable sources can be found saying that the party is Eurosceptic, then perhaps the claim can be included, but otherwise it should not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Left Unity (UK). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111160344/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/03/10/exclusive-tommy-sheridan-to-stand-for-euro-elections-86908-21185994/ to http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2009/03/10/exclusive-tommy-sheridan-to-stand-for-euro-elections-86908-21185994/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)