Talk:Solidarity (South African trade union)

NPOV

The idea of starting a page on the trade union was not with the intention of self-promotion, but only to put some information out there to create a starting point for other users of Wikipedia to improve (as has already happened since). It is quite difficult to find unbiased sources for the material other than Solidarity itself, as even most media reports about the union are closely based on the union's own press releases. The fact that a new campus of Sol-Tech was opened, for example, is verifiable only from within Solidarity itself, or by physically going to the building. Nothing independent has been published on the subject. Nevertheless, it could be considered to be a fact of encyclopedic interest. Anyone is, of course, welcome to edit or even remove any of my contributions if they have reason to believe that the content is unsuitable for Wikipedia. Solidariteit (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how is this a reason for NPOV? If you go and have a look at i.e. the ANC article or related articles, you'll see that lots of it is taken from sources closely related to the ANC, too. Other sources will of course be welcome, too; including criticism. --41.151.45.51 (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Translation from the Afrikaans version

I have been adding a lot of content to the Afrikaans version of this page. Anyone who wants to help move and translate this content, as well as edit it on the Afrikaans version, is very welcome to do so! Solidariteit (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not at all biased against Solidarity, but I'm afraid this article reads far more like an advert or membership brochure than an encyclopedia article, and could do with a bit of a cleanup. 'It is interesting to note that most South African trade unions [blah blah something bad], whereas Solidarity [blah blah something good]' is not appropriate, no matter how valid the motivation might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.114.80 (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The facts ought to speak for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.114.80 (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia guidelines. Some references other than Solidarity itself might help too. There's enough of a problem getting wikipedia recognised as largely neutral at research institutions as it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.114.80 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to change the tone of the article to a more neutral form. Feel free to make additional changes - after all, that is what Wikipedia is all about! I will strive to include more references from sources other than Solidarity as well. From the nature of the subject matter, however, it may be quite difficult, as there is only one academic study of the union (that I am aware of). Media reports are not always a good source, as they are often derived from media statements issued by the union itself (as is the case with many other institutions). Opinion pieces present another problem, as they are by definition "opinion" and not "fact". In reaction to the first comment: I do not agree, that the article purports to say that other trade unions "blah blah blah something bad". The only reference to other trade unions is in the preamble of the article, where it says that Solidarity operates from the Christian tradition of unionism, while most other unions in South Africa operates from the Socialist tradition. No value-judgement is made here - it's a simple fact. If you want academic confirmation, see page 315 of Wessel Visser's academic study of the union. (By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes (~) as it will make it easier to follow the discussion.) Solidariteit (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Solidariteit moet die aanslag op die geldkas in die land ook luid aanspreek.

As 'n Unie - het julle baie klout. Ek luister gereeld as julle op TV is.

Die plunder van die staatskoffers, gaan nou al aan vanaf die eerste tuislande se inhuldiging.

Niemand het nog ooit navrae gedoen wat met die Development Aid miljoene gebeur het nie.

Dus na oor twee dekades van geld vir pelle en plundering van die tenders- wat WERKSGELEENTHEDE ook in karp- moet hierdie sakies uit die kussings gelig word.

As 'n mens kyk na die nuwe elite in die land - OORSKRY HULLE VER die vorige bedeling se elite, want TOE was die geld vir die ontwikkeling van die lewenstyle en die kleiner "landjies" met hul grensposte en paspoort beheer punte geskenk. Maar die miljoene destyds het verdwyn en die regering toe- het dit stilgehou,want hulle wou nie ons land se mense op horings jaag voordat hulle poste in die nuwe kabinet gekry het nie.

Ewe skielik is daar nie meer werksgeleenthede nie en meer en meer mense van alle kleur is werkloos. Biljoene word aan tenders geskenk. Dis pure nonsens. Maak die werkgeleenthede wyd oop. Skop die mense met die helse salarisse uit die CEO poste uit en sny hulle bonusse tot op Performance /Achievement levels toe. Geen werk -geen bonus. Nou is die tyd.

Ek dink dat daar onmiddellik 'n oudit van die tenders se ONTVANGERS en die Persone wat dit goedgekeur het se geldsake en lewenstyle gedoen moet word.

Die Wapen skandaal het 'n ewolusionere dood gevrek en nou is elke Jan Rap en sy skewe neus pel ook in die tender rykes klas.

Buitendien word die werk nie eers ordentlik gedoen nie. Soos die verkeerskonstable se "vrou" wat 219 miljoen by Durbanse Stadsraad gekry het vir huise wat hel uit foutief en onvoltooid is.

A Nee A! Genoeg is genoeg. Vat hulle aan.

Groetenis Esther Bawden

Pinetown —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.43.209 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

misleading statement

"The extreme right-wing views associated with the union had led to a dramatic decline in popularity and membership: the union had only about 30 000 members left at that stage." It is implied that membership was low due to "extreme right-wing views". There is actually proof for this. In fact their opposition towards de Klerks handover of power may have stabilised membership despite socio-economic change that did take place during the previous decades. That they now have a couple of times the membership has been cause by its opening up to other sectors of the economy except mining. --41.151.45.51 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean: "There is actually NO proof for this", right? --41.150.175.173 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Updated information

Good day, I want to update the article but do not have permission to do so. Can someone please help and "unlock" the article/change the settings so that it can be possible for other users to update freely?

Regards, ElanaElana Barker (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted you. I see it's been suggesting that your edit to the union's article at af.wiki is marketing and that you've misrepresented sources. Here you were clearly white-washing the article. You may also have a WP:COI and I've raised that at your talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Article needs to be significantly revised or deleted

This article has significant WP:NPOV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:VERIFIABLE issues. It looks like the article was written by people affiliated with the trade union/Afriforum. Editors have commented on the article's flaws for a while now. Will try to improve it as much as I can. Desertambition (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

This was a white-only union

But you would not know that reading this article. I found this article, by reading about how racist union members defected, when their South African Iron and Steel Trades Association became non-racialised. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

@Shushugah I was just going to draw your attention to this article as one that might especially need work during the upcoming editathon! -- asilvering (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)