Talk:Labour coalition

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

Was "Labour" a party that endorsed the GFA?[edit]

The following is added here so that if we come to inproving this article, we will have some good sources available easily enough. It reates to a discussion on Talk: Good Friday Agreement.

The article basically says, the GFA was supported on Good Friday 1998 by 8 NI political parties. It currently lists "Labour" as one of them. The question has been raised as to what this "Labour" refers to and should it be there at all. My understanding is the following:

  • A party named "Labour" was indeed officially accepted as one of the 8 NI parties that endorsed the GFA at the conclusion of the processs on GF 1998 (Various Sources: some listed below, another is "Austen Morgan book);
  • Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 This UK Act specifies "Labour" in its Schedule. This Act related to the "negotiations" referred to in Command Paper 3232 (Ground Rules for Substantive All-Party Negotiations, Cm 3232, 16 April 1996 [1]) presented to Parliament on 16th April 1996;

Boston, Massachusetts December 7, 1998] - Another source in the same terms; here it is described as the "Northern Ireland Labour Party" and the leader describes himself as a member of the "Labour movement".

  • Belfast Gazette (an official legal source) which includes the following Belfast Gazette 16 August 1996:

NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE, CHANGE IN THE NOMINATING REPRESENTATIVE OF A PARTY LISTED IN PART II OF SCHEDULE 1 OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND (ENTRY TO NEGOTIATIONS, ETC) ACT 1996 PUBLISHED UNDER SECTION 5(2) (B) OF THE ACT. Mr. Malachi Curran is the nominating representative for Labour in place of Cllr. Mark Langhammer. The negotiations mentioned in section 1 are the negotiations referred to in Command Paper 3232 presented to Parliament on 16th April 1996.

  • Note that the negotiations that concluded on Good Friday 1998 were the "the negotiations referred to in Command Paper 3232 presented to Parliament on 16th April 1996." The official name for the Party, it appears, by law was recognised as just "Labour" though additions like "NI Labour" or "Labour Party of NI" appear perfectly understandable. Similarly, there is this source: House of Commons Hansard, 6 Dec 1996 : Column: 808 which again refers to "Labour".

In summary, "Labour" was, officially (i.e. on paper) still a party when the GFA was concluded; its leader was one of the leaders who endorsed it and as such is recognised as one of the 8 parties that did so. I think this is fairly clear.

Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mate. That looks like original research to me. Can you cite a source that says that says in so many words, "'Labour' on its own was the official name of the group representing labour in 1996" (The mere appearance of the word in a command paper is not a statement of that fact, or of any fact; it's just a word), or that this 'Labour' was, officially or otherwise, still a party when the GFA was concluded? Bear in mind that synthesis is not allowed under WP:NOR. The source has to clearly and unambiguously state the fact being asserted. Scolaire (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think you understood the sources I already provided. The definitive source is (here I post it again): *Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 This UK Act specifies "Labour" in its Schedule.
If you disagree, please explain why. If you don't think the above legislation is relevant, please explain properly why you think so. And please provide a formal legal source for why it should be "Labour Coalition". Frenchmalawi (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think you understand the way Wikipedia works. I am not obliged to "provide a formal legal source" for anything. Wikipedia is not a burocracy. An editor is, on the other hand, required to provide a reliable published source for any assertion he or she makes. Nowhere in your link does it say "This Act specifies 'Labour' as the name of the party", therefore your assertion that it does fails WP:Verifiability. In fact, it is quite clear that the act did not, did not pretend to, and did not intend to, specify the name by which any party was to be called. Otherwise it would have been called "An Act to specify what certain political parties are to be called". Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a second, you are saying the name is "Labour Coalition". You have to give a source. I've given sources for the name "Labour". You have to give a source for "Labour Coalition". Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write and possible titles[edit]

I have re-written the article using whatever facts I could source, and removing anything I couldn't. Thanks to Frenchmalawi for providing some useful links. As to the title, it turns out that the title comes from the Socialist Democracy article, which was the sole source when the article was created in January 2006. It does not appear to have been the name of the group. The problem with a title like "Labour (Northern Ireland)" is that it is too generic: it could apply to the whole labour movement in NI over the last two centuries. A further complication is that a number of articles link to "Labour Coalition", and changing that link to something like "Labour in the Northern Ireland peace process" would make those articles quite messy. I propose renaming it as "Labour coalition" (lowercase "c"), which shows that it was a coalition, not a party, but that "Coalition" was not its name. Scolaire (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am really surprised; I didn't think you and me could ever interact positively. My guess was you had taken something against me. I am happy that progress is being made with the article and I like the thrust of your edits. As for title, I don't mind leaving it as "Labour Coalition". Frankly, I don't think its worth bothering changing to "Labour coalition" but if you want to, ok. The important about the name thing is that the article itself confirms that "Labour" was the name. You have done this in the first sentence. I think we also need to do it in the info box which still reads "Labour Coalition". Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And thank you for your positive response. Scolaire (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labour coalition. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labour_coalition&oldid=1208071905"