Talk:Socialist Workers Party (UK)/Archive 1

message: This article needs a list of the members of the Central Committee.  The SWP's website seems curiously devoid of that info.  Is this actually public?  Morwen - Talk 22:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Tried looking up who were their designated officers on the register of political parties, and of course they aren't on it.  Morwen - Talk 22:33, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: The best I've found is this Weekly Worker November 6 2003
which lists Alex Callinicos, Lindsey German, Chris Harman, Dave Hayes, Chris Nineham, John Rees and Martin Smith as the leading members of the CC. Secretlondon 23:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool.  I've put it in the article, in a sort of NPOV way.  Morwen - Talk 23:21, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I've added this information and the link to the leadership section.--NHSavage 01:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Central Committee

message: Alongside the (elected) Central Committee, there is a Control Committee. What do we know about it? Markb 10:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Control Committee

message: -	user:T bone is making many "minor" edits to this article, whitewashing it, removing huge chunks of text and anything critical of the SWP. I hae attempted to restore much of this deleted text. Beware minor edits by this user - they invariably are anything but minor! 213.122.187.29 01:27, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Whitewashing article

message: Changed the image to a PNG one 'cus thats what they tell us to do --JK the unwise 15:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: There is quite a bit on the ANL (4 paragraphs) does it all really belong here or should most of it be moved to the ANL page?--JK the unwise 16:05, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ANL 

message: "In addition it publishs an international bulletin and an internal bulletin Party Notes, various pamphlets and books often through its publishing house Bookmarks and a number of rank and file news papers for specific industries such as Post Worker."
Does this mean it sells bookmarks, or its publishing house is called 'Bookmarks'? I'll assume it's the latter for the time being as it's capitalised, and add commas to make this sentence clearer. 62.255.32.11 20:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarity 

message: This article is getting huge, but so far it is tottaly unreferenced!! If people do not start adding authoritive references for this large body of material I think we should give it an extreme triming. --JK the unwise 15:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started adding some references. However I still think it needs a trim. IMHO the best way to do this would be to split the history section into its own article. Comments?--NHSavage 00:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now moved the unreferenced tag to the History section which now seem to be the only completely unreferenced part. Other sections need better references but don't IMHO need flagging.--NHSavage 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: History section given its own section. I'll try and do a short, referenced section for this article soon.--NHSavage 13:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Done referenced history up to 1974. This is mostly based on Birchell, Cliff and Higgins so might inadverantly be POV. However I think it offers a basic, referenced history up to this point which can be built on. From here on it gets harder as Cliff's autobiog is not online for this period, Higgins peters out and this only leaves Birchill to 1981 which is also someehat worse. Other good references would be appreciated.--NHSavage 20:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking as someone who finds it hard to follow all the splits, counter-splits and microscopic movementitoes of the British far left, and gets rapidly lost in the maze of organisations (some of which could presumably meet in a telephone box), might it be possible for someone to create a "map of the British Left" page in Wikipedia, which would show off each organisation on a sort of family tree, perhaps with appropriate colour schemes to show the level of hate, accusation, feuding, name calling and so on between each one? With references of course to the Life of Brian and similar helpful sources. Just trying to help everyone understand. MarkThomas 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I sympathise with your request but I am not sure that it is practical to do this. If you go to:  you will see why. Even to manage the Trotskyists would be hard. To be honest if you want to know this history of any specific group go to its page and leave a request there.--NHSavage 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Completed the new history section. I now think that this article is now probably one of the best referenced around.--NHSavage 22:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Have created a section on criticisms of the SWP - at present it covers the gay/women's rights "pandering to Islamism" accusation and criticisms from the anarchist movement. The latter has sources but the former does not, tho I suspect weekly worker will have something (am tired but will do it later) - if someone could NPOV check these and edit where necessary as am new to Wikipedia would be much appreciated, and/or add other criticisms and SWP responses.
Have included a link to the infamous "Monopolise Resistance?" leaflet from SchNEWS as felt it relevant. Mark Thomas' "Crap Comrades" may be of use also. --Black Butterfly 00:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Surely this article should be Socialist Workers Party (Britain)? As the SWP argues for a united Ireland it does not organise in N. Ireland. Its sister organisation in Ireland covers the whole of that island. Also its website is titled Socialist Workers Party (Britain). (I also should have thought about this before creating the new history page).--NHSavage 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved both.--JK the unwise 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, but there needs to be a general approach to this.  The Labour Party (UK) doesn't organise in Northern Ireland, so the two pages should have the same disambiguation.  If this page stays moved, that page should also move. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I wasn't to hasty in my moveing of the page, I'd had a couple of glasses of wine.--JK the unwise 09:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the question of the correct title for the Labour party belongs on that article's talk page. The situation is not identicle in that the Labour Party does have a Northern Ireland Minister whereas the SWP claims to believe in a united Ireland....--NHSavage 20:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title incorrect

message: Someone at this IP address keeps adding the same opinionated illiterate rubbish (I say this as no fan of SWP). Can this address be blocked from changing the page?
--Paul Moloney 09:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning 86.133.190.117

message: Since the Theory section refers to the Socialist Review Group without explaining it, I think the History section would be better placed above it rather than below it. Any comments, or objections? --Duncan 10:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem more logical that way around. The only problem is that the history section is rather incomplete whereas, while needing more work, the theory section is much nearer to being complete.--NHSavage 21:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't seem like a reason to keep the present order.  Don't see why we should hide incompleteness.  Since there's been no clear dissent for a week or two I'm going to go ahead and change this. Kalkin 03:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Duncan 16:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of sections on Theory and History