Talk:Alba Party

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"[1]. 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)