Talk:Socialist Workers Party (UK)

message: Is he really a member or former member? He's such a right-winger I think it may be vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.61.17 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was raised before here. Clockback really is Peter Hitchens, by the way. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peter Hitchens

message: The criticism page is clearly written by SWP supporters.  The wording of the criticisms is vague, the wording of rebuttals (such as the sockpuppet below "...despite the existence of an annual delegate conference...") sounds ultra-impressive and specific, without giving much actual information.
It's a way of confusing the argument and putting up a smokescreen.  Straw men! Unsigned comment from 81.157.17.172 
:Actually, what you are describing is not, in itself, sockpuppetry. Read sockpuppet. --Duncan 21:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry!

message: /Archive 1
Criticism
I think the section on criticisme needs rewording. I think all political organizations are accused by their opponents or rivals of being "undemocratic" . We need a more precise characterization of the accusations if any. 
Something like : 
"The centralized structure of the SWP, despite the existence of an annual delegate conference, is considered by some other Left groups as undemocratic.  "
What do you think ? Johncmullen1960 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This also looks a bit weak to me.  We could do with a bit more detail on who has made this criticism and perhaps quote it directly, then look for an SWP response to it. Warofdreams talk 01:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived talk

message: Is there any substantiation available for the "largest party of the left" claim? Presumably this is actually Respect? MarkThomas 19:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since most SWP members are not in Respect, it's quite possible that Respect is smaller than the SWP. However, it clearly is a party, and on the far left. --Duncan 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which simply goes to demonstrate what I suspected already - that there will be many shades of opinion on this. Is Respect a party? It describes itself as a coalition, and as some of its constituent parts are parties in their own right, I think that's where the important distinction lies. As for 'far left', it's clearly not a revolutionary working-class organisation, hence not 'far left' in my book, but that's just my opinion. Guy Hatton 15:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we review political party then Respect perhaps does qualify: it styles itself as a coalition, but its leaders and members refer to it as a party interchangably. Of course far left is troublesome, in so far as it's perjorative and rarely used to self-describe: perhaps you might not think that most organisations that are or were far left are revolutionary working-class organisations. But Respect's positions do align well with the EACL, in which it participates, and is a coalition of leftists. --Duncan 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as WP goes, a lot of these things are down to common perception - Respect appears to the public to be a party, even if internally it is considered some kind of coalition or front. I also don't particularly trust statements from most political parties, particularly those of a more doctrinaire disposition, about membership - they nearly always inflate such figures or put a positive gloss on them. There is no objective source on party memberships in the UK and one only needs to look at such figures claimed for Labour and the Tories to see what a quagmire they are. MarkThomas 07:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest party of the left claim

message: I have added a section on practice, because it seems to me that the SWp is not only differentiated by its theories. Open recruitment, no permanent factions, and a central emphasis on publications are important elements of what the SWp actually do. 
Naturally each of these elements is criticized - in politics if you'r enot being criticized, it's because you're not doing anything ! Johncmullen1960 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: practice

message: The article needs updating regarding the 2007 split in Respect and the allegations by George Galloway and others of Control Freekery. ابو علي (Abu Ali) (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: John, it wasn't actually George who said that, but rather Linda Smith, the National Chair and Leader of Respect.--Charliewbrown (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Respect – The Unity Coalition|Respect]] Split 

message: I've now twice reverted anonymous editors who dispute the idea that a large proportion of the SWP's claimed 6,000 members are inactive, paper members, despite the evidence of a long-time leading member, Lindsey German.  The idea that the SWP has 6,000 active members is clearly false, as anyone who has been to their events recently will tell you.  There might be 6,000 people paying some level of subs to the SWP but that is not the same as active members.Haldraper (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is "Perhaps the major problem facing the party, over and above any specific strengths and weaknesses in any area of work, is that the level of passivity remains extremely high. Of around 6,000 registered members, probably the majority are totally or near totally passive. Perhaps a tenth of this figure attended pre-conference aggregates, despite controversies which usually help raise attendance." the evidence? adidas (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's the evidence.  There is no way of verifying the 6,000 members claim - I'd guess that most are ex-members who still give a bit of money - but the number of active members can be measured by turnout at SWP events and it sure isn't anywhere near 6,000.Haldraper (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that paragraph can be an evidence, the second sentence of this article -"It claimed to have around 6,000 members as of 2008"- would not be a 'wrong statement' I think. adidas (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the SWP publishes, or its leaders offer comment on, the number of active members, where activity is defined as attending national events. Attending pre-conference aggregates is not required for membership of the SWP. There is a difference between being a non-member and being a member. If the SWP leaders make comments (as they have, even in internal discussions) about the membership of their party then we can reference that and state it. But the formally registered is the real membership, not the number of members who attend pre-conference meetings. Since the outcomes of pre-conference aggregates are largely predetermined, not attending might not indication total passivity. --Duncan (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Duncan, have you read Mark Steel's book 'What's going on?'.  As someone who joined the SWP in the late 70's and recently left, he describes the dramatic fall off in their membership - shrinking branch meetings, national events etc - and also the leadership's attempts to cover this up by never taking people off the books even if they've not been seen or paid any subs for years.  It's a bit like the Catholic Church with lapsed communicants, you never leave, just move into a separate accounting column marked 'not as active as they used to be'.  If I was guessing, I'd say the SWP has a couple of thousand people regularly paying subs and maybe a third of them are active.Haldraper (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text:  The last two comments wildly miss the point.  The SWP presents itself as a Leninist combat party composed of revolutionary militants bound by the discipline of democratic centralism.  The idea that you can be regarded as a member of such an organisation - rather than loose, reformist parties or the conservative party - by paying subs and never turning up to any meetings or events is frankly ridiculous.  What it points to is that the SWP keeps lots of people on its books who in other Trotskyist groups would be regarded as ex-members/sympathisers.  As to the idea that German's comments are just 'one person's views on party membership', that is strictly true but as the person in question was until recently a longstanding leader of the group it does carry more weight than if me or you say it based on anecdotal evidence.Haldraper (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

text: "The idea that you can be regarded as a member of such an organisation - rather than loose, reformist parties or the conservative party - by paying subs and never turning up to any meetings or events is frankly ridiculous." Do you have a source for your special rule? --84.64.85.77 (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a 'special rule', it is the practice in all far left groups I know.  The claim that the SWP has 6,000 members is therefore highly misleading (as well as being unreferenced given it is German who makes the claim and there is no way of independently verifying it).  I therefore propose to remove it.Haldraper (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 6,000 members?

message: There is no evidence of that. The reference is to an internal bulletin, by L.German (a member of the SWP!), which is in no way an independent source. I will therefore remove the "largest" claim and replace it with, "one of the largest" 
70.81.135.168 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I take your point.  I removed the claim that it had 6,000 members based on the same internal document for that reason.  I do think the SWP, although smaller than it was, is still the biggest group on the far left but there is unlikely to be an independent, verifiable source to back this up.Haldraper (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One might ask which other far-left party could claim to be the largest... Paul Foot, in his obituary of Tony Cliff in the Guardian says "when the Communist party, with its (comparatively) huge roots in the organised working class, collapsed in 1989, the SWP became by far the largest and most confident of the socialist organisations to the left of the Labour party.". An article in the Times says the following: "Beyond the limits of the Labour party there exists an ever-spinning whirlpool of organisations competing for your affections - and subscriptions. The largest is probably the Socialist Workers party (SWP). It claims 8,000 members, while its rivals in the revolutionary rush say the true figure is less than 2,000. Most of the other assortments of socialists, communists, Leninists, Marxists and Trotskyites have trouble pushing their numbers up into the hundreds." I think we're pretty safe with "largest far-left party in the United Kingdom". Fences&Windows 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's formal membership is larger than Respect, the CPB and the SP added together. --Duncan (talk) 06:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I too agree that the SWP is the biggest far left group.  The problem is finding an independent, verifiable source, rather than a member like Foot or German saying 6,000 or an opponent organisation saying under 2,000.  To make a comparison, you would also need membership figures for other far left groups.  How big's the SP for example?  I could make a pretty good guess but I don't know how you'd find out without joining.Haldraper (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Duncan, there are two problems with that.  Firstly, as you know, membership in a Trotskyist group involves regular activity under the discipline of the group.  It is not like the Labour Party where you can pay your subs once a year and you're a member.  To say the SWP has 6,000 members (as opposed to ex-members/sympathisers who occasionally give them some money) is therefore misleading.  Secondly, even if you couch it as 'the SWP claims a membership of x thousand ', many people will take that as good coin, even if the claim was for say 20,000.  In any case, do other Wiki pages on political parties give membership figures?Haldraper (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hal, on your first point: your definition is yours. Most Trotskyist organisations have some members who are not involved in regular activity under the discipline of the group. And discipline is quite different in different organisations: in some groups in Britain, the culture is that you need to clear who you are dating; other are happy if you come to most meetings and pay up. The SWP is of Trotskyist origin, but it's no more Trotskyist than the ISO, US SWP, the AWL, the DSP and so on. So even if Wikipedia used your definition of what a Trotskyist group is, the SWP would not be a Trotskyist organisation. On a global scale, the organisations containing most people who consider themselves Trotskyist would also be eliminated. On your second point: The question is should Wikipedia use it if political parties give a membership figure. I think we should, it's useful and encyclopedic: as we all agree, its useful to be able to day that it claims to be the largest far left party in Britain, and to reference it. We don't have to cite the specific number, just reference it to support the statement that it's the largest. --Duncan (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: SWP biggest far left party in Britain?

message: Due to the negative connotations of the phrase "far left", would it not be better to replace it's use in the opening sentence with "revolutionary socialist"? After all, in the reference it is phrased as "largest revolutionary party" and not "largest far left party". Jh39 (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with using "revolutionary socialist" is that some other groups would dispute this categorisation, suggesting instead that the SWP are "centrist", "opportunist" or "infantile leftists". The term "Hard Left" is preferred by many on the left to "Far Left", and is wide enough for groups like the SWP to share with those who would dispute any designation of them as a (or 'the') revolutionary socialist formation.
Riversider (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far Left 

message: I don't think it's necessary to include the statement of the Labour Party being capitalist. First, it's just extraneous, but secondly the source is The Labour Party: a Marxist History by Tony Cliff and Donny Gluckstein - Cliff was the founder of the SWP, so while it's a good source for what he thought of the Labour Party, it's hardly an independent source. Fences&Windows 01:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Description of the Labour Party

message: The children's author has a rather tenuous relationship with the SWP. In an edit comment of 09:18, 9 February 2007 (which appears to be genuine) he says the following: "technically I'm not 'associated' with the SWP. I'm approached to write articles for the journals or speak or perform at events. I do this on a strictly one by one basis". See the talk page of the Rosen article. Philip Cross (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Michael Rosen

message: I've reverted the stuff on the recent SWP-organised RTW conference in Manchester for three reasons:
*Recentism.
*Unencyclopaedic/fan tone.
*Undue weight: one meeting in the fifty year history of a political tendency does not warrant such prominence, especially when it is not true as the anonymous editor claims that it was "one of the biggest conferences the SWP has ever organised". Chris Harman in 'The Fire Last Time' describes SWP industrial conferences in the 1970's of over 3,000. Haldraper (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RTW conference 

message: Much too long an article for a tiny group of young fools coupled with a literal handfull of adult looney tunes still waiting in vain for "The Revolution". No mention is made of the number of MP's elected in the last election.  Or the one before that.  Or the one before that.  Or...72.209.63.226 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: There seems to be a running edit war about a section stating that this particular journalist made criticisms of the SWP in 1993.  The journalist does not have a Wikipedia page and looking on Google does not seem particularly notable.  She is of course entitled to her opinions but I don't see they carry more weight than yours or mine.  Looking at the source cited (a semi-editorial piece based on a TV investigation) it's not at all clear what her criticisms of the SWP are, as a range of left wing groups are denounced for a range of ills.  As it stands, this section is just innuendo alleging "violence" but not even backed up by the cited source.  Specific criticism from the (respected investigative journalism) "World in Action" program would be a different matter.  Does anybody have any?  As it is I'm blanking this section.  --Simon Speed (talk) 01:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining your reasoning. My beef with the IP editor, and the reason I reverted, was simply the refusal to explain properly and failure to engage in discussion when asked. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank goodness www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Socialist_Workers_Party is no longer being linked to on the main page! --90.208.224.157 (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Restored a reference to the Jojo Moyes article from 1993. The quote contained there from Ken Livingstone is to the point and eminently valid to the subject of this article. Philip Cross (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jojo Moyes 

message: An editor removed a passage describing the May 2011 invasion of the British conciliation service arguing that it contained only one reliable source and was given undue weight. As the incident gained plenty of mainstream coverage at the time, the later point is difficult to sustain. Added two mainstream sources, and precised the defence of the activists by Martin Smith for balance. Philip Cross (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Acas invasion

message: The section on recent activity  is not neutral, because it gives undue weight to internal conflict and controversy. These are important, but the section "recent activity" should mostly talk about what the SWP typically does.
::I would disagree with this. An article on the conservative party would not be complete without a section on the Eurosceptic wing of the party and their disagreements with the leadership. Where longstanding members of the Central Committee resign from the organisation, this is a notable event in the life of a party. While the SWP pretends it has no internal conflicts (and makes them unconstitutional, apart from a short period during conferences), it's impossible to prevent an organisation applying praxis not to generate internal disputes, it's pretty basic dialectical materialism to understand that "there's no progress without conflict". The SWP's inadequate methods for enabling internal disputes and discussions are not an excuse for such disagreements to be disregarded in an article looking objectively at the SWP. Riversider (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: recent activity

message: The role played by Tony Cliff in the founding of the SWP seems to be being progressively downplayed. His photograph has disappeared from the article, to be replaced by one of Hallas, and the information about his ideas and practice (which differ significantly from the current practice of the SWP, particularly around standing in elections) seems to be no longer included. Is he being edited out of history?
Riversider (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony Cliff

message: Another user, in the reference to Laurie Penny's article on the SWP, altered "noted" to "claimed" on grounds of maintaining a neutral point of view. The passage (with a small cut) from her NS article is as follows: "According to a transcript from the party's annual conference earlier this month...friends of the alleged rapist [were] allowed to investigate the complaint..." Obviously, the SU blog is not normally admissible as a reliable source, but the transcript reproduced on the Socialist Unity blog is here while Charlie Kimber's objection to its dissemination (Kimber does not claim it is in any way inaccurate) is here. The use of "noted" rather than "claimed", which was first added via an edit made by myself, is thus perfectly legitimate. Philip Cross (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Internal crisis

message: Someone called Rob Owen is listed as a notable member. Notable for what? Anyone? JohnBaker68 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Student organiser around 2007-8, and SWP member on the NUS national executive who failed to be elected NUS President in the spring of 2008. Also active (formerly, one assumes) in Respect. No desperate need to be listed here in any context. Philip Cross (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rob Owen 

message: Hi
I recently edited the lede of this article, and my main point of objection is the sentence that begins with this section's title. I do not object to including condemning statements about the SWP in the article, but this sentence is plainly unencyclopedic. We shouldn't assert in Wikipedia's voice that the mainstream doesn't have time for SWP, if this analysis stands up to scrutiny and is regarded as sufficiently important to be part of the lead, the text should read something like "The SWP is not regarded as important by most (perhaps a qualifier?) actor's in Britains public discourse (reference), '(<-- quotation mark) The mainstream doesn't have time... etc.'"(ref to Nick Cohen)
To make this clear: I don't know whether Cohen's assessment is right, and I have no intention to whitewash the SWP - from what little I've read about its rape scandal, and what it the handling of it says about the party, I have no problems imagining that Britain's mainstream now has little time for it. What I object to is the way this information is put into the encyclopedia's voice.
Best regards, benjamil talk/edits 11:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection you are quite right. Having had no difficulty rejecting a Mail article from last year by Melanie Phillips (tabloid citations are frowned upon anyway), an eminently suitable article by the much more credible Owen Jones was easy to locate. Philip Cross (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The mainstream doesn't have time... 

message: I have been taken to task by another user for objecting to the use of 'kanagroo courts' (from a citation) by another user. Quite apart from the fact that the added material is repetition, and editors are not obliged to use everything from a source, the term 'kangaroo court' is used incorrectly here. According to the Wikipedia article a Kangaroo court "is 'a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted'. citation. It is essentially where the defendant has already been deemed guilty, and has little if any opportunities to object or defend himself." The first half applies to the 'Delta' case, but the second half clearly does not. Philip Cross (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the other editor that User Philip Cross has referred to above. He has repeatedly made this edit  despite request to use talk. He mistakenly says that it introduces duplication but, in fact, that's the only reference in the article to the widespread description of the disputes committee as a kangaroo court. It maybe POV that it it or is not a kangaroo court. Clearly the phrase has bene used in a notable reference. --Duncan (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The repetition is the questions to the alleged victim about her sexual past and drinking habits. See the passage before the reference currently numbered 87. You have ignored my point that the term is being used incorrectly. Philip Cross (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If the term is being used in a direct quote, why does it matter if it's incorrect or not? --78.151.18.230 (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

text:  Selection of details is essential if the more recent developments of the history of the SRG/IS/SWP are not to be over represented in this article. See Wikipedia:Recentism for general explanation of this issue. Avoiding the use of terms which are inaccurate ("kangaroo court") or inappropriate and potentially offensive ("socialist sharia court", The Independent, 11 January 2013) is one minor way to achieve this objective. Philip Cross (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So you don't actually have any policy grounds for reverting this edit. I would argue, however, that inaccurate and inappropriate terms used by a source deserve to be recorded more so than mundane, accurate ones, as that makes them notable. Saying that, I hadn't actually read the whole edit, and now that I have none of what is being added appears to be useful referencing of this source. --78.151.18.230 (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Kanagroo courts'

message: Why is Jonny Jones - a former (not current) deputy editor of International Socialism - listed as a notable member?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.219.232 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Jonny Jones

message: In October 2013, a faction of 300 opposition members called 'Rebuilding the Party' was declared as details emerged of another rape investigation earlier in the year in which the victim was allegedly encouraged by the party to drop the case. 
2.28.1.24 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of the Weekly Worker the 'Rebuilding the Party' faction has gained negligible coverage so far, and I am not myself always sure of the accuracy of the WW. Of the new allegation of a rape having occurred, the Guardian piece looks to be the only potentially citable source at present, and its merely a 'diary' item. If this issue becomes as serious internally as the 'Delta' case has, or the proper authorities become involved this time, there will be no difficulty in establishing its notability. While I'm not responsible for any final decision, I think the answer has to be no for now. Philip Cross (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, let's await consensus ... --Stfg (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 26 October 2013 

message: As it is intimately connected with this article, editor's should know that the Socialist Workers' Student Society has been proposed for deletion. As I have no way of knowing the opinions of those watching this article on this issue, I hope this is not taken as canvassing. Philip Cross (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: SWSS

message: Revise the membership numbers.
Garageland66 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015 

message: Why is this article concealing the identity of former SWP National Secretary Martin Smith under the pseudonym "Comrade Delta"? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they'd violate Wikipedia guidelines on biographies for living people.  Unknown Unknowns (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be a "reputable source" for the internal affairs of a minor Trotskyist group? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin Smith

message: My resolution of a vague statement containing a gloss on the word "around" ("The group [...] was formed around Tony Cliff's analysis...") was reverted, on the grounds that my alternate wording wasn't accurate to the situation. I have no trouble believing this, since the line, as currently written, means nothing, and I had to guess at its intent. Please rewrite this line so that it actually tells our readers what happened. The necessary improvement will exclude the word "around"; movements don't "form around" something, least of all an "analysis". Reversion has only restored the weak statement. Laodah 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Please write clearer copy

message: The following, apparently well-sourced, couple of sentences on major issues facing the party in 2013 has been edited out of the lead with the explanation "Removed outdated, now irrelevant speculation":
 
The lead should summarise the article and this incident gets due attention in the body so I believe should be included in the lead. The mainstream sourcing and significance for party membership (including the departure of several noteworthy members) suggests this is noteworthy, as does on-going reporting and several mainstream opinion pieces over the years.  I think it should be restored. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2013 crisis 

message: The history of the party is only followed up to 2014. The crisis of this year is covered at length. But the party continues working when there is no internal crisis! Can we have an update? 2A01:CB08:8BE:AA00:D575:6A8:DC92:5E2A (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have some reliable sources, feel free to provide them. Alssa1 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: 2021

message: Hi @Alssa1 - what do you mean by adding a big white gap when inputting the template:socialism in the UK? From my computer screen, it looks fine and the text flows around it? How are you viewing the page? Jamzze (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Alssa1 - @FormalDude has kindly figured out the issue! Jamzze (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for the radio silence, but yes they have! Alssa1 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:socialism in the UK