Talk:Socialist Workers Network

message: This heading appears in the middle of the article and doesn't appear to make any sense or have any relevance. Does anyone know what this is supposed to refer to? Looks like creative editing to me.
Ben Bulben 18:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Did Ireland Get here 

message: The additional information by annon user 219.89.83.173 looks good and is probally all true however it would be could if they could provide referances so we could cheak it out.--JK the unwise 11:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referances 

message: I don't have a clue how many members they have but I thought i'd just note down that User: 219.89.83.173 claimed that they have 500 members and that User: 213.202.177.11 changed this to 200 members. If either could offer some evidence of mebership numbers that would be grand.--JK the unwise 15:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll never be able to get an accurate figure as groups don't publish them. The best we can do is try and find a quote from somewhere. Secretlondon 15:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Membership 

message: From the article: Following riots in Dublin on 25 February 2006 by republicans protesting at a planned 'Love Ulster' parade, the SWP issued a press release in which it expressed its full support for the actions of the rioters.
Is this true?  Does anyone have the text of the press release?  The party quoted immediately after the above sounds familiar, but it doesn't amount to an expression of "full support for the actions of the rioters". --Ryano 09:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dublin riots 

message: The whole article reads like a press release. There are so many examples but let me use one like "...taking a pro-choice stance in a country still dominated by the Roman Catholic Church." That is biased and lacks verifiability.  The whole article needs to be overhauled, preferable not from the SWP press office.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamfoley (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a fan of the SWP but I don't see how this article is biased in their favour. The sentence re. their pro-choice stand has since been edited out. However, while I'd agree that the tone reads like a press release, the sentence isn't untrue. Unless there are other examples that can be pointed out as being POV, I'd recommend removing the POV template. --Antoin 17:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article lacks neutrality

message: I've just removed the following from the "notes" section of the article:
"please the swp split in Belfast nov 2009
Split centred around Belfast
The Socialist Workers Party has split. There has been some speculation on
Indymedia and elsewhere that the SWP was having internal difficulties in
Belfast. The dust has now settled, and the bulk of their Belfast
organisation is now outside of the party.
The SWP has been having a tough time of it in Belfast in recent years. In
the early years of the decade, the Belfast SWP was the success story of the
organisation, building a number of branches and a strong student group. Then
a period of decline followed, with branches merging, the student group
weakening and the loss of some key activists. Now an organised split has
taken most of the active, politically hardened, remaining members, leaving
the Belfast SWP with an occasionally visible prospective election candidate
and a handful of his associates.
The arguments flared up around electoral strategy. The Dublin leadership
wanted to run Sean Mitchell, the excitable young member who got a small but
respectable vote in West Belfast last time out. The Belfast committee,
essentially a joint branch committee for the two mini-branches the party was
operating in the city, wasn't so sure. Most of its members were of the view
that Mitchell had been insufficiently active in the area over the last year.
It was, in other words, a minor tactical difference of a sort that a
democratic organisation could easily accommodate within its ranks.
Unfortunately for the SWP, it is not such an organisation.
With typical heavy handedness, the Dublin leadership came down on the local
dissidents like a ton of bricks. Vitriolic arguments ensued and the Belfast
committee was wound up to shut up those who disagreed with the Political
Committee. The writing was on the wall after that. The people who had held
the SWP together in Belfast over a long, hard, period were told in no
uncertain terms that either they did as they were told and shut up
complaining or they'd be expelled. They decided to jump before they"
- What kind of rhetoric is this? "with typical heavy handedness", "like a ton of bricks", "unfortunately for the SWP it is not such an organisation"? This section is obviously dodgy. Someone can feel free to rephrase, rewrite, etc. - I was personally involved in this split, so will not do so myself, because I would be unable to write it from an NPOV.
- Also, before they what...? The concluding sentence isn't even finished?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.78.73 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Belfast split

message: I've just reverted an edit which reversed the inclusion of Richard Boyd Barrett's successful election to the Dáil as while Boyd Barrett was elected in 2011 as a People Before Profit candidate, he remains a member of the SWP. None of his election literature mentions that he's a member of the SWP (which I understand to be a conscious decision as the the same can be said for all the other SWP members who ran as PBP candidates). He gets prominent and favourable publicity in SWP publications but I haven't (yet) found a verifiable source that categorically lists him as a member of the SWP (though it would be big news on the Irish left if he were to leave the party). The reticent nature of the SWP makes it hard to obtain verifiable references. So far on Wikipedia, I've only made minor edits so I'm not sure what source would be neutral and credible enough for this purpose. --Antoin 23:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Boyd Barret elected as member People Before Profit 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Does the name change from "Party" to "Network" mean that they're no longer a political party? Charles Essie (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  SWP to SWN