Talk:Globalise Resistance

Seeing as how the stearing commity of GR contains 12 non-SWP members to 7 SWP members its seems inacurate to redirect quires about GR to SWP - So I changed it.
--JK the unwise 15:01, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why do people feel the need to vandalise this page? You may have a disagreement with some of the criticisms levelled at GR, but to simply excise them from the article reeks of Stalinism and is also attrocious wittiquette. If you have a problem with the allegations of the CPGB and others on the left then rewrite the article in order to put those criticisms into their proper context, don't just try and pretend they don't exist. In accordance with the above I intend - once I've worked out how - to revert the article to the last version by JK (himself hardly an opponent of GR). I encourage people to work on it (it really needs looking at), but please try and do so in an honest, open manner. Disillusioned kid 21:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This page has been altered by GR members because the criticisms that have been put up form a tiny part of GR's work over 4 years, the linking to inaccurate and slanderous articles by tiny groups with axes to grind against GR (weekly worker, Schnews) is a distortion of the work GR has done when put in that perspective, and as members we feel we should have the right to say how our group is represented. If for instance you take a look at the Schnews entry there is no criticism or links to articles spreading lies about them. So why does GR get different treatment? Disillusioned Kid or JK have had no involvement in GR and therefore are not the best arbiters of what Gr's entry should be. Criticism of GR being used by the SWP to be involved with the Social Forum process has been left in by us, despite the fact that GR predates that process and both SWP and non-SWP members have been active in that process since it began, and SWP members bieng involved through GR is no different from Labour party or Green members being involved through groups like War on Want.

136.148.1.142 10:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Globalise Resistance

While I agree with you that the accusations found in the Weekly Worker and SchNEWS articles are largly sectarian rantings and agree that your veiws as members as valuble, I don't think that it gives you the right to dictate what the page says. C.f. You wouldn't accept Labour party members demanding that only their point of view was put accross in an article on the labour party. In fact I have been involved in GR before (and would be now if it existed in Manchester) so you are wrong there. The way wikipeida works articles have to be writtern from a netral point of view rather then a true one (as editors would never agree on the truth and endless edit wars would be the result) I see your point that because of the small size of the article the critisms represent an unrepresentative percentage of the article, prehaps it would help if the article got expanded. One issule is that Wikipedia requires that sourses are cited (otherwise there is no way to check the information and people could right anything) so it would be brilliant if you could find some ballanced articles on GR. I won't re-vert it back for now, lets work towards a concensous.--JK the unwise 17:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

JK I'm disappointed your a Marxist and a philosophy student and you think it's possible to have a 'neutral point of view' isn't the phrase itself an oxymoron-better get reading that Gramsci?! Anyway that aside let's say we want a balanced entry as that's better. I'm not saying 'we' have the right to determine the page but then nor do I think you or the rather sectarian 'disillusioned kid' do either. I'm glad you've at least been involved in GR, maybe you could drop us a line at the office so we knew who you 'really' were. Anyway onto the substantive stuff, the accusations from Weekly Worker and Schnews are not just 'largely sectarian rantings' they are totally sectarian rantings! Schnews did their pamphlet just after Genoa largely because of the success of the GR mobilisation and the develop of the movement beyond anarchism- it is an attack on the SWP (and a bad one at that) and not GR per se, which is why I think it's not on to link to it, also many of it's 'sources' in that document are hearsay and indymedia, hardly reliable, (as I said you don't find lots of links to criticisms on the SchNews entry), we also find that in spite of the criticism SchNews and their fellow travellers in Brighton Dissent have no problem taking and using GR artwork for their G8 posters, hmmm... The Weekly Worker is more serious in that a number of GR steering group members are smeared and lied about in that paper, which of course is well known in the labour movement for it's inaccurate and sectarian reporting. I don't see why we should link to articles that are lies or make false accusations do you? As for the members who left during the ESF, well that's not such a big deal, although again none of them actually mentioned any problems before leaving, they just left and then brought out a statement designed to inflict maximum damage on us and to promote their group which if you look at the website is just GR with a slightly more autonomist bent. But as I said before the key problem is that these criticisms are given almost as much space as what we've done, yes we could write more of what we've done, but then we have a website and maintaining that is enough work, surely our wikipedia entry should be fairly concise about the groups orientation and major achievements, no? We'll discuss this more in the steering group, as I'm sure the independent members will be annoyed by the unfair representation of their hard work too (though they are use to it by now). 136.148.1.143 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Globalise Resistance

Actually I have had some peripheral involvement with GR for all that matters. You seem to have no idea what Wikipedia is for. It is not a place for you to advertise ypur group. The reality is that most of the left regard to GR as a front group, whether this is accurate or not is hardly relevant. Any serious Wikipedia article should engage with that controversy. The article as it is is a joke. Disillusioned kid 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)