Talk:Scottish Christian Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Scotland
 Scottish Christian Party is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:


Contents

[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:



[edit] Election box metadata

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:


[edit] Are they registered?

I looked a few days ago at the Electoral Commission database, and could not find them. If they are not a registered political party then that must be stated in the article: as the candidate is just using this name, and there is no legal entity behind it.--Mais oui! 22:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting - the "sub-title" is the same as that used by Operation Christian Vote, and unless I miss my guess they are regarded themselves as a separate party in literature. I will scan the 'net and get back with any info I find. doktorb | words 12:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
This - Byelection blogspot - has a quoted report from the Sunday Times regarding the SCP. Any use? doktorb | words 12:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for that. How should we re-word the article? I feel that it is important to mention that they are not officially registered as a "party" (yet?).--Mais oui! 14:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


They have posters up all over the west end of glasgow. would be weird to go to such hassle if they weren't even registered.

Scared of the truth? "James George Hargreaves, whilst a DJ at the time in London who shared a flat with his gay song-writing partner, also wrote the gay anthem "So Macho" which was a hit in gay clubs in the UK in 1986.[1] According to the Times Online, Rev Hargreaves, after having made millions from his success on the gay club scene, is now having to deny accusations of double standards as he uses his fortune to fund a campaign berating homosexuals."

[edit] Weasel Words

"The SCP claims to use the talents of Christians in different callings to bring the grace of the Gospel to bear upon the religious, spiritual, moral and social problems in society" has got to be the most weasel-word loaded statement I have ever read - except perhaps on a pack of Special K. I propose either removal of this statement or a rewording without the weasel words.--62.249.233.80 21:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, it's quoting them. It would only count as weasel words if someone had changed the wording from neutral to praising or criticising the party by the words used. GiollaUidir 19:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


On a similar note, I've changed the section title "promoting the inhumane treatment of prisoners" to "proposing the deportation of Scottish prisoners". Whether this practice is either technically or legally inhumane is an object of subjective criticism, not a valid section title. Marrog (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Criticism and controversy' section

This section seems, to me, deeply non-neutral - it is essentially an extended attack on the party, listing a series of arguments against them with no counter-arguments. While some of the listed criticisms may be sufficiently notable to me worth mentioning, many of them are probably not. This section should be rewritten to reflect a more neutral point of view, or deleted altogether. Terraxos (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree very much. The link: "Scottish Christian Party face fines for illegal posters". This came to nothing as far as I know. I am told that the SCP took legal advice as to the earliest time they could put up their posters, so that there was no breech of the law. Rather they were taken down by opponents illegally; see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/scotland/2007/03/366521.html?c=on#c170011. The link: "Scottish Christian Party call in police" shows that the SCP took this seriously and did not consider themselves to be acting illegally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ergateesuk (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me to be very much an outside analysis of the party, with no reliable sources for the main reason that the main parties did not see the need to hit out at them and the press did not give them much coverage apart from the "So Macho" issue. Even if it is a good analysis of things like the undeserved punishment that would be imposed on prisoners' families by deportation, it does not belong on Wikipedia without reliable third-party sources. If you Google "mind pollution levy", you will find a number of attacks on them, but not by anyone of any stature. Certain facts the party material appears to be contrary to could perhaps be mentioned e.g. the dubiousness of the abortion-cancer link, the questionable use of the term "18-rated" in relation to CDs, as well as the existence in Scotland of school prayer and the right to parental corporal punishment, meaning their policies sound like potentially extreme extensions of these. Blue links could perhaps be created to some of the things they want e.g. chastity and creationism in education.Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)