Talk:Socialist Workers Party (UK)

Peter Hitchens

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)

I think he is. It's on his page, there's no source, but I think it's well known. A lot of people joined and left the IS/SWP as students with remarkably little effect on their long term politics. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This was raised before here. Clockback really is Peter Hitchens, by the way. Philip Cross (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry!

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)

Archived talk

/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)

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)

Largest party of the left claim

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)

Depends whether or not you consider Respect a.) a party, and b.) of the far left. Personally I would say 'no' on both points, in which case the 'largest party of the far left' claim applied to the SWP is probably true, though difficult to verify - and as such is probably best left out of the article. Guy Hatton 09:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The SWP is definetly the largest far-left party in England. The SWP has around 5k members, all of the others claim to be in the hundreds. While the SP is alittle over a thousand. Even if there isn't a 100% factual source it is entirely common knowledge. No left wing party in the UK claims to have more. All on the far left know the SWP is dominant at least in numbers.

This is just fantasy and long out of date - where are these 5000 members? The SP definately has almost 2000 members, they pay subs and send delegates to Congress. The SWP's 'membership' is comprised mostly of people who once attended a meeting , or used to be members before they saw through the organisation. The maximum number of members of the SWP in any one place at 'Marxism' is about the same as at the SP's 'Socialism' events - I'd say they are no bigger anymore. The largest Party on the left, as the saying goes, is FORMER members of the SWP, many of whom are probably still 'on the books' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotboy (talk • contribs) 09:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

practice

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)

Para on Lenin / Stalin

Guy has recently deleted a para saying "The SWP support the contributions of totalitarian Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin to Marxist thought. They maintain that the revolution only became oppressive under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.[1]" I have to say that this appears to be correct - isn't it true that the SWP considers itself Marxist-Leninist but is anti-Stalin and pro-Trotsky in very general terms? Why the removal Guy? MarkThomas 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine that there is a far more NPOV way to put this, whether Lenin was 'totalitarian' is part of the accusation the SWP's stance disputes.--JK the unwise 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If "totalitarian" means (according to Wikipedia) "the attempt to mobilize entire populations in support of the official state ideology, and the intolerance of activities which are not directed towards the goals of the state, entailing repression or state control of business, labour unions, churches or political parties." This appears to be an extremely accurate depiction of exactly what V.I. Ulyanov set out to do and did in high (self-appointed) office. In fact, it appears that JK yours is the POV, and an extremely minority and sectarian leftist POV at that. I would prefer that Wikipedia articles like this tell the truth about organisations. SWP supports Marxist-Leninism, which is a totalitarian and anti-western liberalism and anti-democratic model. Let's say so. MarkThomas 17:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As JK has already said, the application of the term 'totalitarian' is highly controversial. It is commonly deemed perjorative in regular usage, and hence in this context probably unencyclopedic. Unfortunately, the broader definition you quote is not, I think, how most people would interpret it. Even then, that is most certainly not what Lenin set out to achieve - whether or not it was what actually happened in the latter part of his leadership is another debate. Also, the term 'Marxism-Leninism' has a particular meaning amongst socialist organisations, and would never be applied to any party which claimed to belong to the Trotskyist tradition, as the SWP does. Lastly, I felt very strongly that the source citation was being grossly misused - the article in no way supported the claims being made.

Hope this clarifies my reasons for removing that paragraph. Guy Hatton 08:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe then you should "fix" the totalitarian article. We will await that with bated breath. :-) I think I see small piglets flying over. Totalitarianism isn't any more pejorative than saying "Leninist" and if we're being accurate we should say it. If the SWP suddenly took power in the UK, as is their dream, would we have democracy, or would we have Supreme Leader Rees (presumably in a job-share with Supreme Leader German!) and a Stasi-style "Industrial Brigade" to keep order, beat up the Tories, etc? The latter I suspect. But of course it's not totalitarian because it's Bronsteinism! Puh-leeze. MarkThomas 10:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Guy Hatton 11:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss, don't revert things that don't happen to fit in with your extreme-left POV then. MarkThomas 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion I do - hence the explanation above. Inane sarcasm, on the other hand, gets short shrift. End of story. Guy Hatton 12:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sarcasm, just genuine joy that you understand a different sense of "totalitarianism" to (most) of the rest of us. MarkThomas 12:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The original statement made the assumption that Lenin's leadership can be correctly categorised as totalitarian. The SWP doesn't accept this, and the article on totalitarianism marks the categorisation of the Soviet Union at any time as authoritarian as being controversial. It doesn't even mention Lenin's period. So the discussion about the term would be best held at talk:totalitarianism - where I see there is already a lively discussion on various applications. Warofdreams talk 16:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to limit discussion about the SWP's policies on this article. Just because the totalitarian article doesn't specifically mention Lenin is irrelevant. I have clarified the SWP's beliefs in the lead section. MarkThomas 16:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Where has anyone tried to limit discussion about the SWP's policies? This clearly isn't the place to decide whether Lenin was a totalitarian leader; that has very little to do with the SWP's policies. The introduction to an article should strive to be based on uncontroversial factual statements; controversial statements should be in the body, where they need to be sourced and attributed. The statement you are proposing is clearly controversial, given the objections to it on this discussion page. Warofdreams talk 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

II think Mark has misread the SWP article he linked to in the section we are discussing. The section we are discussing says of the SWP: "They maintain that the revolution only became oppressive under the leadership of Joseph Stalin.[2]". In fact, the article stresses the degeneration of the revolution in 1920, and Lenin's opposition. Incidentally, the SWP would not call itself marxist-leninist, in so far as this means anti-Trotskyist. --Duncan 22:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, in case anyone reading this talk page has just skimmed the article, that there is already a discussion of the SWP's relation to the Marxist tradition in the section named "Theory". It notes that they see themselves as standing in the tradition of Trotsky and Lenin and that they seek to distinguish themselves from what they see as the separate tradition of Stalin. Has anyone got anything constructive to say about how this section could be improved, if improvement is necessary?--JK the unwise 07:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion. Some say the SWP is in the Leninist tradition and others not. If it is, then the question arises as to Lenin's totalitarian methods. I suspect the latter is in fact the case. Only one question remains - which of the SWP leadership will head up the secret police? :-) MarkThomas 08:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The SWP is a Leninist party, but does not call itself Marxist-Leninist. Here's its leading theorist Alex Callinicos: "I wouldn’t call myself a ‘Marxist-Leninist’ because this implies adhesion to some version of the Stalinist orthodoxy that became institutionalized from the mid-1920s onwards. But I have no qualms about calling myself a Leninist when it comes to revolutionary organization."[3]. Although it is into Lenin big time (see its founder, Tony Cliff's, three part hagiography of Lenin), it does not see Lenin's period of rule as an "ideal society" (again, see the final installment of Cliff's trilogy, which highlights the problems with the period after the 1917 revolution). So it is rather unfair to make these sort of designations. I think that the section on Theory already more or less adequately captures the SWP's position. It might be worth augmenting the State Captalism subsection with something that makes clear that the SWP sees the USSR as becoming state capitalist only after Lenin's death - which differentiates the SWP from other proponents of the state capitalism theory, such as left communists.

As for totalitarianism, it is utterly un-wikipedian to describe things as totalitarian as if this can be stated as a matter of fact. If it is worth saying - under the Criticisms section - that some people see it is totalitarian, then this needs to be done by citing solid examples, such as Nick Cohen or Oliver Kamm [4] BobFromBrockley 11:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's more to it than this though. If the SWP has a revolutionary Leninist agenda, then it must have a number of secret intentions and presumably a "plan of action" for taking over the Army, the Police, the security services, etc. This would be useful to include in the article. Clearly the SWP has both secret agendas and published agendas and likes, as do a lot of extremist political factions, to misportray its aims in public. It absolutely must be the case that the SWP would for example have a secret police if it came into office. Searching for references for something so obvious may be difficult, since it is also utterly insignificant. :-) MarkThomas 11:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah the SWP doesn't have a secret plan of action to take over the army. That's a misunderstanding of what kind of revoltuion the swp is in favour of. A Revolution is to be carried out by millions of workers, a fair part o fthem organized by a mass party ( say a couple of hundred thousand absolute minimum). So for the present period the aim is to persuade people that a revolution is possible and will go better if the party is bigger, not to sit around in groups of a few thousand making secret plans of action. not serious. Mark, I know it's not your ideas, but I am surprised to don't know more about their internal dynamic... Johncmullen1960 08:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt that the SWP would have a secret plan for taking over the various arms of the state. We're hardly in an immediate pre-revolutionary situation, so it wouldn't exactly be an urgent issue, and most Marxist organisations hold that it's not possible to plan in any detail the post-revolutionary society before the revolution. At present, I would imagine that the SWP's main secret aim is to get people from the various campaigns it has set up to join the party. The reason that you won't find references for your claims is that they are purely your own supposition. In the article, we need to stick to facts or significant and sourced opinions. Warofdreams talk 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the lack of sources would just be because the "mainstream" media don't believe the SWP are important enough to warrant much investigation, although they are mentioned from time to time in the Guardian-Observer. I believe Respect earned them a few mentions when Galloway was at his most ridiculous. Apart from that, they are beneath the radar. As with a lot of fringe groups, I would question them really being notable enough for a mention on WP, except perhaps in the cult sections. All that pressure to sell newspapers gradually changes one's grip on reality, and I fear some of this page's defenders suffer in that way, as they do on other similar articles. :-) MarkThomas 12:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources on the SWP, just not on your suppositions. We have many articles on things seldom mentioned in the mainstream media; this alone is not evidence of lack of notability. In my experience, the SWP are mentioned from time to time, anyway. Warofdreams talk 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Respect Split

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)

Certainly needs updating on facts of respect split... control freakery is such a vague and non-political thing to accuse an organization of though. Is it really notable, in the mouths of someone like GG who doesn't hesitate to use colourful phrasing...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I have just deleted this sentence "In February 2008, Pat Smith was charged with perjury in connection with the evidence she gave in the case."

This is because it is now one year later. IF the person was found guilty, we need to say so, if they were cleared, same thing. To leave the sentence just like that seems a bit like trying to muddy their name. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion that follows this article, it seems the SWP are big fans of the Labour Party and it's achievements: http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Tory-leader-tackles-top-issues.5117326.jp does the article reflect this attitude to the Labour Party adequately? Riversider (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

6,000 members?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've come on this talk page because I saw the 6000 members statement and it immediately struck me that qualifying it with "although a large proportion of these are paper rather than active members" is totally POV. This is the case for just about any party. Do you think everyone in the Conservative Party turns up to all the meetings? Of course not. Labour Party sub-constituency-level branches with dozens on their books seem to attract less than a dozen to their meetings, and usually no more than a couple of apologies are sent. For every regular who turns out most of the time and bothers to let someone know when they can't there are plenty of members in name only who send in their subs and don't feel motivated to involve themselves beyond that. This is all assumed when hearing a membership figure by anyone who knows anything about political parties or other mass-membership organisations and how they function. What would be notable is evidence that nearly all members participated actively in any party bigger than a handful of founders. There is no justification for specifying that the SWP has plenty of inactive members unless anyone can point to research showing clear evidence that SWP members are disproportionately passive when compared against those of other parties. 79.64.177.124 (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

What we have here is one person's views on party membership, so how can you possibly say that "a large proportion of these are paper rather than active members" based on the evidence of one person? If you want to be fair and impartial then state that Lindsey German made the comment that she thought a lot of these members were inactive, as the eveidence only points to that. The other side to this is the ridiculous notion that party membership can be reduced down to attendance at a party aggregate or meeting, or even a basic level of activity. I'm wondering how many members the Labour Party could claim if we applied the same standards to it. Johnathan Rook (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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)

SWP biggest far left party in Britain?

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)

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)

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."[5]. 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."[6] I think we're pretty safe with "largest far-left party in the United Kingdom". Fences&Windows 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

I question whether an independent source can ever verify an organisation's membership. If organisations or their leaders state a figure, then we can reference that statement and should do so with comfort wince we know the general statement - larger than the others - to be true. One point to compare could be attendance at flagship events, which is often lower than paper membership. --Duncan (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Duncan, I've done just that with a ref to one of their IB's which usefully also discusses the concept of registered and unregistered members.Haldraper (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few sizable political formations around that may or may not qualify as 'parties', but which stand in elections: Solidarity and SSP in Scotland, TUSC, Respect in England. Some would describe Green Party as 'left'. Very hard to justify any claim to be 'largest' in such an uncertain and fluid environment, particularly after recent splits/expulsions/defections. There are also big difficulties in defining 'largest'. Biggest number of card-carrying members? Biggest number of affiliated Trade Unionists? (TUSC would win this one), numbers of candidates standing in elections? Largest in terms of 'influence'? Largest in terms of newspaper circulation (Morning Star), or website hits (Weekly Worker)?Riversider (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Far Left

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)

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)

Yeah, I suppose whether the party is actually particularly 'revolutionary' is debatable, but really, 'far left' implies a revolutionary party also. Seeing as the party claims to be a revolutionary Marxist party, and the reference says 'revolutionary socialist', I'd still argue that 'revolutionary socialist' would be a better term than 'far left'. Jh39 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have almost never heard the expression "hard left" used in Britain on the revolutionary left...Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Description of the Labour Party

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)

There are plenty of examples of citations referring to Labour's neoliberalism on the talk page of the UK Labour Party WP article. Riversider (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Michael Rosen

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)

Michael Rosen is not a member of the SWP. Someone keeps posting this up and linking to a Weekly Worker article which calls him a member without citing any evidence. He sometimes writes for SWP publications and appears at the SWP's Marxism festival but it is widely known that he is not a member. --Righteous Triangle (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried removing it but the person has re-posted it. If the poster would like to discuss it here that would be great. --Righteous Triangle (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RTW conference

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)

Article length

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)

well, there are people who don't believe that Mps change the world more than other phenomena such as campaigns, strikes etc. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"The SWP's anti-Zionism is rooted in the Trotskyist tradition"

Surely a POV statement - I've tagged it as such - and unable to be supported by a verifiable second party source. Haldraper (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Trotsky's death preceded the establishment of the Israeli state by several years, this does seem to be a rather bold claim.

Trotsky's actual writings on the Jewish Question can be found here: marxist internet archive

The general (rather prescient) theme is that Zionism on the basis of capitalism will be a reactionary dead end, but that under socialism, it could be possible for a Jewish state to exist, and for conflicts between Arabs and Jews to be resolved:

The very same methods of solving the Jewish question which under decaying capitalism will have a utopian and reactionary character (Zionism) will, under the regime of a socialist federation take on real and salutary meaning. This is what I want to point out. How could any Marxist or even any consistent democrat object to this? (1937)

The conflict between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine acquires a more and more tragic and more and more menacing character. I do not at all believe that the Jewish question can be resolved within the framework of rotting capitalism and under the control of British imperialism.

And how, you ask me, can socialism solve this question? On this point I can but offer hypotheses. Once socialism has become master of our planet or at least of its most important sections, it will have unimaginable resources in all domains. Human history has witnessed the epoch of great migrations on the basis of barbarism. Socialism will open the possibility of great migrations on the basis of the most developed technique and culture. It goes without saying that what is here involved is not compulsory displacements, that is, the creation of new ghettos for certain nationalities, but displacements freely consented to, or rather demanded by certain nationalities or parts of nationalities. The dispersed Jews who would want to be reassembled in the same community will find a sufficiently extensive and rich spot under the sun. The same possibility will be opened for the Arabs, as for all other scattered nations. National topography will become a part of the planned economy . This is the grand historical perspective that I envisage. To work for international socialism means also to work for the solution of the Jewish question. (1937)

Trotsky’s last comment on the issue before his death was:

“The socialist revolution is the only realistic solution of the Jewish question. If the Jewish workers and peasants asked for an independent state, good — but they didn’t get it under Great Britain. But if they want it, the proletariat will give it. We are not in favour, but only the victorious working class can give it to them”( 15 June 1940 )

This is a very different position than that currently held by the SWP.

Riversider (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved per discussion below. - GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Socialist Workers Party (Britain) → Socialist Workers Party (UK) — "(UK)" is the standard disambiguation for political parties in the United Kingdom. This includes mainstream political parties such as the Conservative Party (UK) and the Labour Party (UK), which are represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and smaller parties like this one, such as the Socialist Equality Party (UK), the Socialist Labour Party (UK) and the Workers' Revolutionary Party (UK).

That the SWP is active in Great Britain and not Northern Ireland is not directly relevant, as it is still seeking representation in the UK Parliament. The Celestial City (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Adding Young Communist League (Britain) to this move request, for the same reasons as above. The Celestial City (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC) The Celestial City (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Young Communist League (Britain) → Young Communist League (UK)

• Oppose, the Irish SWP organized (organizes?) in Northern Ireland. By this logic the Irish SWP should be called 'Socialist Workers Party (Ireland and the United Kingdom)'. 'Britain' is the adequate wording when talking about the communist movement (that was never a UK movement, but a British movement). --Soman (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Socialist Workers Party (Ireland) does organise in Northern Ireland, but your logic is flawed; Ireland is an island which encompasses the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, so using "(Ireland)" as the disambiguation is appropriate. Britain, however, is ambiguous; it can refer to the island of Great Britain, which is inaccurate as the SWP certainly operates in parts of the UK, such as the Isle of Wight, which are not part of Great Britain or Ireland; or it can refer to the UK as a whole, which does include Northern Ireland. The Celestial City (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as per The Celestial City. Jonchapple (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Celestial City is creating some red herrings. There are a whole series of reasons why the political status of Northern Ireland is different fromt the Isle of Wight, and may political organisations recognise this. PatGallacher (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that some Irish republicans challenge Northern Ireland's status within the UK; obviously the Isle of Wight is very different, and, if you read my post carefully, you will see I am not trying to compare the two. Northern Ireland is, however, universally accepted, including by the Republic of Ireland, as being part of the UK and the use of "Britain" to refer to the UK minus Northern Ireland is misleading, as I have stated above. I respect the SWP's positions, but using their terminology for disambiguation purposes on Wikipedia is not a good idea. The Celestial City (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Flamarande (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because this is not consistent with Wikipedia's existing use of Great Britain which says Politically, Great Britain also refers to England, Scotland and Wales in combination,[9] and therefore also includes a number of outlying islands such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland. The SWP does organise in Great Britain only, and not in Ireland. --Duncan (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The "political" meaning of Great Britain, is, at best, ambiguous; primarily, Great Britain is an island. I don't think "Britain" is a precise enough term for disambiguation. "UK" is much better. The Celestial City (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain is not an island. Britain is an island. Great Britain is Britain and the islands of England, Scotland and Wales. That is to say, the United Kingdom minus Northern Ireland. That's why the country is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Duncan (talk) 11:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Your claim that "Great Britain is not an island" is incorrect. Please see Terminology of the British Isles, which will inform you that Great Britain is indeed an island comprising England, Scotland and Wales, and that "Britain" can refer to both the United Kingdom (the state) or Great Britain (the island), but not the United Kingdom minus Northern Ireland. The Celestial City (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support The name of the country is the UK. TFD (talk)
• Support The party organizes in 3/4 of the Countries of the United Kingdom and a political not a geographic term is appropriate here. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jojo Moyes

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)

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)

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)

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)

Acas invasion

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)

recent activity

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)

Tony Cliff

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)

Internal crisis

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).

Rob Owen

Someone called Rob Owen is listed as a notable member. Notable for what? Anyone? JohnBaker68 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

The « mishandling » should be presented as an allegation not a fact. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The mainstream doesn't have time...

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)

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)

'Kanagroo courts'

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)

I'm the other editor that User Philip Cross has referred to above. He has repeatedly made this edit [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Jonny Jones

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)

Good point. Nothing to indicate notability. I have removed him from the list. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 October 2013

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. [8] 2.28.1.24 (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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)

In that case, let's await consensus ... --Stfg (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Stfg (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

SWSS

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)

Notable members

Sorry, but I've reverted (again) the removal by GiantSnowman of the entire list of notable members. Firstly, BLP doesn't apply to people who aren't "L". Secondly, all the people listed are bluelinked (per WP:LISTPEOPLE) and generally are verifiable in their articles. Sure, I found one yesterday that made no mention in their article of previous SWP membership so I removed it. It makes sense to remove the few that aren't verified. But almost all of them are, so deleting the entire lists is wholly negative and uncalled for. Sionk (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, none of them are verified on this article. GiantSnowman 15:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sionk, where did you get this list from? I have just checked three at random, Laurie Taylor, Oona King and Alan Gibbons and none of those articles confirmed the point. They may be current or former members but we need some refs if we keep it. Possibly it should be restricted just to senior people or a separate list article? If it is kept in any form, this list is a rod for our own backs as many people flirt with the SWP before moving on to grown up politics and some other people like to "out" people as former SWP members so expect plenty of trolling and vandalism. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I also looked at Ian Brown and John Squires yesterday, nothing on those articles either. Obviously people like Alex Callinicos is a member, but he is already covered in the 'Leadership' section. GiantSnowman 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I picked three at random yesterday and two were verified in their article. Maybe I was lucky. Anyway, it's plainly counterproductive then to remove the current senior members or the dead members (citing BLP concerns!), so suggest you reinstate those, they don't seem to pose any problem. Sionk (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

For the record, three of the people listed above (at least) are all ex-members of the International Socialists/SWP. For Oona King, see the introduction to her Diaries (now linked to Google Books from her article), while Laurie Taylor is ex-IS, see his New Humanist article from 2008 cited there. For Alan Gibbons, see this Left Unity interview. Philip Cross (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If people are notable members of the SWP, they should be referred to in the body of the article. If we can't find anything important to say about their activity in the SWP then they are clearly not notable in a SWP context and shouldn't be mentioned. Their membership can and should be mentioned in their own biographies as long as sourced. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you say. Lists of this kind, a fairly random list, should really be treated as though they amount to trivia, which is basically what you are suggesting. Philip Cross (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes. Its a matter of going back to first principles, giving due weight to things and asking what encyclopedic value content has. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

So you agree that if somone has made a proven contribution to the SWP they could be listed (particularly the dead ones)? I can imagine it would be difficult to describe all of their individual contributions in the body of the article. A list is a more succinct method of navigation. Sionk (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying that if they are notable in an SWP context they should be in the body of the article in text explaining that contribution but that we don't need a list of members in this article who are notable for something else. A list of former leaders would be fine in principle but wouldn't they all be already mentioned elsewhere in the article? Philafrenzy (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My primary concern is sourcing; we can decide on criteria for inclusion later. To be honest I have no problems with a list of former/current members at all, as long as it is adequately sourced. In the list we should not separate dead or alive. GiantSnowman 18:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

If it stays it should be a separate list article with every entry referenced. (Start small and build it up). For some people, saying someone is an SWP member is an insult. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Though you're saying a list is unnecessary because they should already be mentioned in the main article. And GS wants this to become the only bluelinked list of people on Wikipedia that requires an additional inline citation. This is all very bizarre and the reason I took up the issue in the first place. Certainly any list of people should not 'out' them unless they've openly declared their membership in a reliable published source (none of these lefty rumour blogs of course).

There is always Category:Socialist Workers Party (UK) members (51 people in it) which is easily available for anyone who wants to look (and similar categories too for most other far left organisations). How does this extra level of verification apply to those? Sionk (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant biography should contain the fact of membership with a ref. I would prefer there to be no list at all as I don't know what purpose it serves. If they are important in the history of the SWP they should be in the article, if not then what encyclopedic value does the list have since we already have the category? I merely state that if the consensus is that there is some sort of list then it should all be referenced given the controversial nature of SWP membership. The sampling for accuracy of the list that you added was not encouraging. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW I didn't add the lists. They'd been there for several years. Sionk (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, but it doesn't make it any more advisable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2015

Revise the membership numbers.

Garageland66 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

Martin Smith

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)

Because they'd violate Wikipedia guidelines on biographies for living people. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 13:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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)

Please write clearer copy

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)

Gilad Atzmon

Noting this edit by Jontel, removing the following text:

The jazz musician Gilad Atzmon performed at SWP events for several years from 2004, and was promoted by the party as delivering "fearless tirades against Zionism". Because Atzmon believed the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax from the early 20th century, was a valid reflection of contemporary America, Oliver Kamm wrote in The Times in 2006 that the SWP were "allying with classic anti-Semitism". Atzmon and the SWP were similarly accused by other writers. The party eventually severed their association with Atzmon.

With five citations, the incident is prima facie noteworthy, and I believe should be included. If those citations are not considered sufficient, here is a version with some more:

The jazz musician Gilad Atzmon performed at SWP events for several years from 2004, and was promoted by the party as delivering "fearless tirades against Zionism". Because Atzmon believed the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a hoax from the early 20th century, was a valid reflection of contemporary America, Oliver Kamm wrote in The Times in 2006 that the SWP were "allying with classic anti-Semitism". Atzmon and the SWP were similarly accused by other writers. The party eventually severed their association with Atzmon.

We might also want to add mention of the SWP's 2005 response to the allegations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

My edit summary said "Whether a saxophonist plays at their socials or even speaks on Israel is not involvement with other groups and is of little significance in SWP history" Of course, it gets covered by all those with an axe to grind against Atzmon. That does not make it it particularly significant to the SWP. Jontel (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant, sourced. The invited individual is noted for odious positions.--Flying84 (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Of course, it gets covered by all those with an axe to grind against Atzmon." I might paraphrase that as "Of course it gets covered by all those who think antisemitism is an issue." The coverage stretches from the Weekly Worker to the Times, so that's not a niche category. This wide coverage strongly implies noteworthiness. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I think there is sufficiently widespread coverage to justify keeping this material in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, second version. The SWP was the last major organisation on the left to take Atzmon as an anti-racist rather than a racist, and the condemnation they received from across the political spectrum testifies to this. Well-established, well-documented and worth inclusion.

Also David Hirsh (note spelling!) mentions the SWP support for the antisemite Atzmon explicitly in his Contemporary Left Antisemitism: "The Socialist Workers Party and the Scottish Palestinian Solidarity Campaign were not put off by Atzmon's use of antisemitic language when they proudly hosted him at their events for a number of years." (Page 235). ParaScopus (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

2013 crisis

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": It also formed an alliance with George Galloway and Respect, the dissolution of which in 2007 caused an internal crisis in the SWP. A more serious internal crisis emerged at the beginning of 2013 over allegations of rape and sexual assault made against a leading member of the party. The SWP's handling of these accusations against the individual known as Comrade Delta led to a significant decline in the party's membership. 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)

References

2021

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)

If you have some reliable sources, feel free to provide them. Alssa1 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:socialism in the UK

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)

Hi @Alssa1 - @FormalDude has kindly figured out the issue! Jamzze (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the radio silence, but yes they have! Alssa1 (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of significant updates

I think there has been the removal of some sorely needed updates to this page.

Namely here: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Socialist_Workers_Party_%28UK%29&diff=1109082008&oldid=1107409006&variant=en

I think each of these additions were factual, well sourced and relevant and should probably have been challenged of an individual basis rather than the wholesale removal of the entire update.

It does now seem like an obsession with wanting to keep the 2013 allegations paragraph (despite it also having a fairly significant subsection) in the introduction is now coming at the expense of quite a lot of current up to date information on this topic.

For context - The Labour Party does not have a large paragraph in the introduction detailing controversies and membership loss in regards to the Iraq war - it is relegated to the relevant subsections. Cobalt47 (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, what goes on in the Labour party wiki page is irrelevant to this one. Secondly, given your own history of bulk removals of information (whose inclusion on the page has been established by community consensus), it seems strange that you would make criticisms when your large edits (that are not supported by community consensus) are edited and/or removed. Thirdly, given your edit history revolves almost entirely around the SWP, can you confirm whether or not you have some relationship with the organisation? Alssa1 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alssa1 Please make consideration of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF before continuing.

The point about continued denial of attempted updates from a multitude of parties that are both relevant and factual is concerning. Cobalt47 (talk) 22:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Even if something is deemed to be "relevant" and "factual" by one user, does not mean it can't be reverted by another followed by a discussion. Please see BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Regarding AGF and Civil, I would remind you that it was you who accused me of being a "known far-right activist" when last we had an editing disagreement; would you explain how making such an accusation (based on no evidence) fits in with our rules? Alssa1 (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alssa1 Consideration of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF was in reference to your first reply.

Regardless - the prevention of any relevant updates taking place on this page has resulted in the information becoming outdated and unreliable.

For example - the history of publications edit was both a useful, relevant and factual addition to the page that users can reference. There was no justification for it's removal.

The list of websites - a helpful index and reference too - again removed with little justification.

The information on Marxism Festival - a fairly sizable event that has a significant history on the British left spanning 50+ years - removed with no justification.

Paragraphs expanding and updating on the 'crisis' mentioned with great detail in the intro - also removed.

And the constant reverting of the logo to an old, out of date low-res image? This is just odd.

You must stop treating this page as your own private fiefdom and start taking these edits to talk before simply removing them without discussion. Cobalt47 (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Consideration of WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF was in reference to your first reply." - It was a word for word copy of my statement to you 2 years ago when you asserted that I was a known far-right activist.

• "Regardless - the prevention of any relevant updates taking place on this page has resulted in the information becoming outdated and unreliable." - In your opinion, these things are open for debate and discussion.
• "For example - the history of publications edit was both a useful, relevant and factual addition to the page that users can reference. There was no justification for it's removal. The list of websites - a helpful index and reference too - again removed with little justification. The information on Marxism Festival - a fairly sizable event that has a significant history on the British left spanning 50+ years - removed with no justification." As the rules state very clearly: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." - There may be some encyclopedic value in highlighting things like the SWP site etc, but I would argue that listing the SWP's previous & current weekly, monthly and quarterly publications, internal bulletins from its publishing house, current events (etc) does constitute promotion.
• "Paragraphs expanding and updating on the 'crisis' mentioned with great detail in the intro - also removed." - Again this is subject to discussion.
• "And the constant reverting of the logo to an old, out of date low-res image? This is just odd." - Where is the source that says that the original logo is out of date? Also where is the source that shows that the one you've added is the present one?
• "You must stop treating this page as your own private fiefdom and start taking these edits to talk before simply removing them without discussion." - That is not how Wikipedia works; additions are not included as a default. We have a thing called the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (link was also provided earlier). If something is reverted, you don't just add them again without discussion. Alssa1 (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alssa1 Indeed, regardless - WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF does actually apply to you, as well.

"There may be some encyclopedic value in highlighting things like the SWP site etc, but I would argue that listing the SWP's previous & current weekly, monthly and quarterly publications, internal bulletins from its publishing house, current events (etc) does constitute promotion."

They have specific historical value and are also referencing material. (many of these publications are archived at the British library. The list is not detrimental to the coherence of the page. The SWP page mentioning publications by the SWP is not promotion - it's information. There is no reason to remove this.

The same for the Marxism Festival - not having mention of it in this page is significant ommision of data. Cobalt47 (talk) 09:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"WP:CIVIL & WP:AGF does actually apply to you, as well." - No one suggested it didn't; but you are the one who decided to engage in insults.

"They have specific historical value and are also referencing material. many of these publications are archived at the British library. The list is not detrimental to the coherence of the page. The SWP page mentioning publications by the SWP is not promotion - it's information. There is no reason to remove this. The same for the Marxism Festival - not having mention of it in this page is significant ommision of data." Then explain how the inclusion of all this information doesn't break Wikipedia's rules on promotion. Alssa1 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alssa1 you are the one reverting this significant and useful addition to page - surely it should be on you to prove it damages the existing coherence of the page or is in somewhat detrimental to the users accessing the page. There is absolutely no way it could be argued that those additions are self promotion. At no point do any of the break the rules.

The stating of an events existence is not the same as the promotion of that event - especially when it has specific significance to the page is question.

The stating of the existence of a publication is not the same as the promotion of that publication

- especially when it has specific significance to the page is question. Cobalt47 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Striking User:Cobalt47; user is indef blocked from editing the page for edit warring and incivility.

Protected edit request on 21 December 2022: Front organisation

"United front" in lead should be reverted to "front" (linked to Front organisation) as in long-stable version before banned editor changed it on 18 December. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. In fact the article should be reverted to the version prior to their edits. It includes the unsupported, self aggrandising claim by part of the SWP that the Stop the War coalition was a front for them, based on a then-SWP member chairing a meeting in Euston. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I firmly believe we should revert to the Bob's edit, or at least one that was prior to Cobalt47's edit warring. It seems strange that we're currently locked into his revision. Alssa1 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Alssa1 I disagree, the 'front' page is related to criminal gangs and organisations. Has no relevance to this page. 'United front' fits much better. Cobalt47 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Striking User:Cobalt47; user is indef blocked from editing the page for edit warring and incivility.

@Cambial Yellowing not really self aggrandising claim - they weren't simply one of the original founders - but the SWP formed a large portion of the infrastructure and steering committee for the Stop the War Coalition. This remains true, to a much lesser extent, to this day. It's fairly common knowledge and imo, there should be evidence to the contrary in order to remove this. Cobalt47 (talk) 23:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC) Striking User:Cobalt47; user is indef blocked from editing the page for edit warring and incivility.

I undid Cobalt47’s most recent edit. I’ve also answered this protected edit request that essentially sought a not-Cobalt47 revision. Please propose further protected edits as appropriate and/or request unprotection of the article. Zsinj^Talk 03:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Zsinj I think it's prudent to engage in the talk page before undoing perfectly well reasoned edits - just because Alssa1 decided I was edit warring. Who I might add was an equal partner in and is guilty of a fair amount of very, very spurious editing to this page.

What's your reason for removing the Stop the War reference and reverting to an old version of the Logo? Cobalt47 (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't decide you were edit warring, an admin didAlssa1 (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You’ve failed to provide reliable sources for your addition. Claiming that it’s fairly common knowledge is not a reliable source. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing this was never an addition - it was a undo of a deletion that had insufficient reasoning. Would like a list of sources and references citing SWP involvement in the STWC - in order to uphold the original version?

Because removal of this would imply that there none to be found.... Cobalt47 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNSOURCED is sufficient reasoning. Your restoration of it without a reliable source is contrary to established policy on this website. What’s required - not merely what would like – is: 1. edit suggestions from editors who are not indefinitely banned from the article and 2. not to include content which is explicitly denied and that denial emphasised publicly by the organisation itself: "The Stop the War Coalition is not and never has been run by the Socialist Workers’ Party" [9] Cambial — foliar❧ 15:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cambial Yellowing well precisely my point - this is why the SWP's involvement as both one of the organisational founders and also who's membership included the convener for many years is consistent with the 'united front' page as it was in coalition with other organisations as opposed to 'front' page - which implies an incorrect level of control. As you have correctly quoted "The Stop the War Coalition is not and never has been run by the Socialist Workers’ Party".

But I think it would be odd not to have it mentioned in the header of the page due to the significance of the movement and the role the SWP played in it. Cobalt47 (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)