Jump to content

Talk:Socialist Studies (1989)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Generally

[edit]

IMNSHO woolly terms like generally, that can be neither proven nor disproveen save through general knowledge or highly specialised polling should be avoided when discussing facts - hedging is unnecessary, something either is such and such or some people (identifiable) believe something to be such and such. It falls under the same stylistic purview as possibly, or maybe which are unencyclopaedic.--Red Deathy 15:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "generally" is in the same category as "possibly" and "maybe". The way it is used in the article, "generally" means "in the general case" (i.e., "usually" or "in most cases"). Such a claim is certainly verifiable beyond a reasonable degree of doubt. If several banks, building societies, the police, the courts, newspapers, other political parties, etc. explicitly claim that Socialist Studies is fraudulently claiming to be the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and if the number of such entities greatly outnumbers the entities who claim otherwise, then it is true that the Socialist Studies's use of the SPGB name is "generally" seen as fraudulent. I provided several examples to back up this claim, and could provide more on request, but there's not really any point unless you (or someone else) disputes this fact and can provide a greater number of examples of entities claiming that Socialist Studies is not acting fraudulently. —Psychonaut 16:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, in most cases, and often it's used as a hedge in case tehre are cases where X is sometimes not the case. It's more encyclopaedic (IMNSHO) to simply state X is the case and cite, rather than hedge. I think generally extends too far beyond the scope of the limited circumstances involved in this case. I still think it sounds close to POV, but since you feel stroingly about it, I'll not launch an edit war.--Red Deathy 07:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV & Vandalism

[edit]

I'll assume good faith one last time for SPGBer - however, POV pushing is out of order, and altering citation references is vandalism. I'll report that user if I see any further such edits to get their IP address blocked - play nicely. I recognise their is a POV that needs to be taken into account, but that doesn't justify vandalism...--Red Deathy 07:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit premature to be talking, or even thinking, of blocking SPGBer. He (or she) has made only one edit to the article, and as of now has only two edits in his entire edit history. The accepted procedure for new users who violate Wikipedia policy is to educate them about maintaining a neutral point of view, providing citations, and use of our manual of style. For this purpose there are a number of helpful template messages which can be used on the user's talk page. The template messages are available in varying degrees of severity ("good faith", "general note", "caution", "warning", "final warning", "blocked"), which implies that warnings should be given repeatedly (and in increasing severity) before requesting that a user be blocked. There are also other dispute resolution procedures to try before blocking. —Psychonaut 00:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good cop, bad cop. Up till now I thought Psychonaut was the bad one and Red Deathy the bad one. But Red Deathy has only given me one more chance, whereas Pyschonaut has realised that I am pretty useless with computers, and has referred me to the Wikipedia rules and procedures of which I am woefully ignorant. Hands up, I broke the rules. I will never outsmart you two on a computer. I was merely trying to correct what I thought were inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the original article.
However I would like the 2 of you to consider what you are actually trying to do. It appears that you are actively trying to stop a small group of people putting forward socialist ideas. Do you want to stop socialist ideas being put forward? Does it matter if they use the SPGB name if what they are saying is good stuff and in line with the DoP? What is so wonderful about the legal recognition given to the Socialist Party's registration with the Electoral Commission? ( A part of the British state machine) Does it give you copyright over the DoP? Does the Socialist Studies point of view of no compromise conflict with the Socialist Party's more inclusive agenda? For example the Socialist Party can approve of reforms of capitalism without actually advocating them. In other words someone else has to advocate them, and then the Socialist Party can say yes that's ok, it favours the working class, we support it. The fact that the particular reform has been proposed by a group supporting capitalism, presumably because it will improve capitalism and make it stronger must be considered. No socialist could possibly object to say the Factory Acts, and to the various acts relating to public health, education, etc. etc. but what must be remembered is that such measures (after ammendment) are carried in the interests of capitalism and must be paid for by the capitalist class as a whole.
There is unfortunately, no stepping stone path to socialism, only a democratic conscious political social revolution.
(SPGBer 23rd Sept. 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SPGBer (talk • contribs) 20:40, 23 September 2006.
SPGBer, the purpose of talk pages such as this one is to discuss the authoring of encyclopedia articles, not to make accusations regarding individual editors' political ideology or to debate how to establish socialism. Whether or not Red Deathy and I are trying to "stop socialist ideas being put forward" is not relevant here. Please confine your remarks to the development of this article. If you want to debate or polemicize, there are many places besides Wikipedia which are more suitable.
With respect to Wikipedia rules, one's capacity to read and understand them has very little to do with how well one can use a computer. The only computer skill you need is knowing how to operate a web browser. We're not trying to "outsmart" you; we're trying to get you to familiarize yourself with the rules of this community (which were and continue to be developed democratically) so that you are in a position to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia. If you believe that there are inaccuracies and misrepresentations in an article, then you are welcome to edit the article in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on citing sources, maintaining a neutral point of view, and stylistics. If you are unable to do so, you have a number of options:
  • You can ask for help on how to find and interpret Wikipedia policy. You can do so here or at Help:Contents. You'll find that most of us are very friendly and willing to help newcomers. If you don't trust me or Red Deathy, you can approach someone else.
  • You can list the inaccuracies and misrepresentations you have found on the article's talk page. An editor will then review them and might make the necessary changes to the article for you, provided that your claims are or can be supported by reputable citations.
  • Since the articles on Wikipedia are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, you are free to make a copy of the article, modify it, and then publish it on your own web page or print journal. By making the changes to your own copy you won't be bound by Wikipedia's policies.
I hope this helps clarify things. —Psychonaut 02:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperation with capitalist law

[edit]

The section on Cooperation with capitalist law may be incorrect, as according to the Daily Mirror Socialist Studies registered with the Electoral Commission in December 2006. It's not clear why Socialist Studies would criticise the SPGB for registering with the Electoral Commission when they have done so themselves. Is this just hypocritical FUD or is the article wrong about Socialist Studies's attitude to capitalist law? Would appreciate some help here. —Psychonaut 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Socialist Studies (1989). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Studies_(1989)&oldid=1206881911"